Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 8a. Initiation of Broadstone Village (12500 LOVR, RZ-0055-2024, GENP-0056-2024, ANNX-0807-2024)
Item 8a Department: Community Development Cost Center: 4008 For Agenda of: 4/1/2025 Placement: Public Hearing Estimated Time: 60 minutes FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director Prepared By: Hannah Hanh, Associate Planner Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONE, AND ANNEXATION TO FACILITATE BROADSTONE VILLAGE, A PHASED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AT 12500 AND 12501 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends the following actions f or consideration by the City Council: 1. Review the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Annexation applications for overall consistency with policy direction in the General Plan; and 2. Direct staff to proceed with processing all applications to facilitate the Broadstone Village project (i.e., construction of 208 senior housing units, 201 multifamily units; bypass road, a Bob Jones Trail extension, and supporting site improvements); and 3. Confirm staff’s recommendation that funding strategies for the construction and maintenance of the bypass road be developed during the review process with the understanding that general fund contributions to its construction would not be provided (associated with the Annexation application); and 4. Provide direction on issue areas related to the overall number of residential units proposed and the possible inclusion of affordable units as part of the project scope (associated with the General Plan Amendment an d Rezone applications). REPORT-IN-BRIEF LOVR Properties, TIC (Applicant) has applied for General Plan Amendment (GENP - 0056-2024), Rezoning (RZ-0055-2024), and Annexation (ANNX-0807-2024) applications to facilitate Broadstone Village (Broadstone), a phased residential development consisting of 409 units (i.e., 208 senior housing units and 201 multifamily units) at 12500 Los Osos Valley Road (North Site, APN 053-141-013) and 12501 Los Osos Valley Road (South Site, APN 053-161-020) (Attachment A – Broadstone Project Description, B – Broadstone Project Plans). Annexation of a 44-acre parcel located to the immediate south (Hayashi Property, APN 076-081-030) is also requested to accommodate a bypass road (LOVR Bypass) between Los Osos Valley Road and the South Higuera Street/Buckley Road intersection and a realigned extension of the Bob Jones Trail. The project is being Page 229 of 464 Item 8a forwarded to the City Council for an early policy consideration to (a) determine if these applications should be initiated and (b) provide input on any desired project revisions and/or directional items, including the specific issue areas identified in this Council Agenda Report, should the project review move forward. POLICY CONTEXT Per Municipal Code Section 17.130.010 (Purpose), amendments to the General Plan and City limits require orderly processing consistent with overall goals of the City’s planning program and requirements of California State law. Furthermore, Municipal Code Section 17.130.020 (Authority to Initiate an Amendment) specifies the Community Development Director (Director) has the authority to forward any such application to the City Council for early policy consideration. The Council should evaluate the proposed applications for consistency with overall policy direction in the General Plan and direct the Director to process or reject the applications based on the policy considerations. If Council directs staff to move forward with processing these applications, the initiation of the applications does not constitute approval of the project, or any aspect of the project, and only begins the required review process for these applications. The Applicant has submitted the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Annexation applications that would form the basis for the Broadstone Village project and affect all subsequent application requirements related to the project. While Municipal Code Section 17.130.020 details that applications amending the General Plan (i.e., General Plan Amendment and Annexation) can be forwarded to the Council for early policy consideration, the Council Agenda Report discusses all three (3) applications, including the Rezone, because these requests are related and would form the overall project scope. Additional information on the scope, including the relation, of each application is included in the proceeding discussion. If the Council authorizes the processing of these applications, City staff will formally evaluate the project’s consistency with the existing policy framework to determine the nature and extent of General Plan amendments that may be required and initiate the environmental review to evaluate issues and impacts, including but not limited to, flooding, circulation, agricultural and open space resources, etc. At this initiation meeting, Council may provide direction to staff and the applicant on any desired project revisions and/or directional items related to the project evaluation during the detailed review. Staff is also seeking direction from Council on the specific issue areas identified in this report. Page 230 of 464 Item 8a DISCUSSION SITE DATA Locations 12500 LOVR (Figure 1 – North Site) 12501 LOVR (Figure 2 – South Site) Hayashi Property (Figure 4) Parcel Sizes 9.5 acres 13.1 acres 44 acres Total of approximately 66.6 acres (includes the entire area of the associated properties, which is to be differentiated from the area of proposed development) Area of Proposed Development Total of approximately 15.06 acres (includes the specific areas for residential development, supporting infrastructure, and site features) Existing Land Use Designations Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential Outside of City limits, within unincorporated area of the County Existing Zones R-2-SF R-1-SF Outside of City limits, within unincorporated area of the County Existing Uses / Site Condition Agricultural fields, undeveloped Surrounding Uses Single-family residences, SLO Creek, agricultural fields Project Description The Applicant has submitted for General Plan Amendment (GENP-0056-2024), Rezone (RZ-0055-2024), and Annexation (ANNX-0807-2024) applications to form the basis of Broadstone Village, a phased residential development consisting of 409 units across two (2) properties along Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR); a bypass (i.e., public road) from LOVR to the South Higuera Street/Buckley Road intersection; and a realigned extension of the Bob Jones Trail. To facilitate the project, existing agricultural fields located with in the identified project area would be removed to accommodate the residential development (i.e., the senior housing and multifamily units) and associated site improvements (e.g., supporting infrastructure such as roads, utilities, etc. and features such as the trail extension). The proposed 409 residential unit development consists of 208 senior housing units, which includes an approximate 5.6 percent density bonus, at 12500 LOVR (Figure 1 – North Site) and 201 multifamily units at 12501 LOVR (Figure 2 – South Site). These units Page 231 of 464 Item 8a would be constructed as clustered buildings, ranging from one - to three-stories high; include various unit types and sizes such as studios, one -bedrooms, two-bedrooms, and three-bedrooms; and be supported by common areas and facilities such as community buildings, courtyards, pools, and other recreational spaces. Figure 1 – North Site (12500 LOVR, APN 053-141-013) Figure 2 – South Site (12501 LOVR, APN 053-161-020) Page 232 of 464 Item 8a As part of the project, the proposed public right-of-way improvements include the installation of a signalized intersection on LOVR serving as primary access to both North and South Sites, construction of a bypass road between LOVR and South Higuera Street/Buckley Road, and construction of the Bob Jones Trail extension between LOVR and Higuera Street. The signalized intersection would provide primary access to the project sites and potential secondary access to the neighboring residential developments (i.e., Los Verdes Park One and Los Verdes Park Two), if supported by the neighboring property owners. The bypass road would begin at the new signalized intersection at LOVR; run along the eastern property line of the South Site (along the shared property line with Los Verdes Park Two); and through a northern portion of the Hayashi Property, located to the immediate south and outside of the City limits, to connect and create a four- way intersection with the existing signalized intersection at South Higuera Street and Buckley Road (Figure 3 – LOVR Bypass, Figure 4 – Hayashi Property). The proposed Bob Jones Trail extension would be realigned from the previously proposed pathway alignment along San Luis Obispo Creek and instead extend between LOVR and South Higuera alongside the LOVR Bypass. The intent of the proposed realignment is to increase visibility and public safety along the pathway. To assist in addressing costs associated with the servicing the bypass, trail extension, traffic signal, and open space, the Applicant is proposing a Community Facilities District (CFD) as part of the project. If the project review moves forward, staff would work with the Applicant on formation of the proposed CFD during the review process. Figure 3 – LOVR Bypass Page 233 of 464 Item 8a Figure 4 – Hayashi Property (APN 076-081-030) As currently proposed, the project would be constructed in three (3) phases over an anticipated ten (10) years. Provided below is the tentative proposed phasing schedule, which would be further evaluated and subject to further refinements as part of the application review process, if the project review moves forward : Phase 1 o North Site: Construction of 48 units, LOVR frontage improvements, main entry roads and relocation of City sewer facilities o South Site: Construction of 91 units, LOVR Bypass extended from LOVR to project entrance, and community amenities, and offer of dedication of secondary access to Los Verdes Park One, if supported by the community Page 234 of 464 Item 8a Phase 2 o North Site: Construction of 62 units, common areas, and common amenities o South Site: Construction of remaining 110 units, LOVR Bypass, Bob Jones Trail extension, and traffic signal at LOVR Bypass/LOVR, and offer of dedication of secondary access to Los Verdes Park Two , if supported by the community Phase 3 o North Site: Construction of the remaining 98 units To facilitate the Broadstone project, the Applicant has applied for several applications that would create and affect different elements of the overall scope. Listed below are the various requests associated with each application type. The scope for the General Plan Amendment includes the following: Modification of the existing land use designations from Medium Density Residential (MDR, North Site) and Low Density Residential (LDR, South Site) to High Density Residential (HDR) for both sites in order to permit the highest number of residential units. Minor adjustments between the boundaries of the Open Space (C/OS) and proposed HDR land use designations to reflect the existing mapped edge of riparian habitat for San Luis Obispo (SLO) Creek and accurately identify the resulting developable area for each project site. Designation of the Hayashi Property as Agriculture (AG) and/or Open Space (OS) in coordination with the appropriate corresponding zone(s) (only to be pursued if the Annexation is initiated; excludes areas proposed for the public right-of- way improvements [i.e., LOVR Bypass and Bob Jones Trail extension]). Modification of various maps in the Circulation Element to reflect the proposed LOVR Bypass, which would provide a new road between LOVR and South Higuera Street/Buckley Road (only to be pursued if the Annexation is initiated). The scope for the Rezone includes the following: Change the existing zones from Medium-Density Residential (R-2-SF, North Site) and Low-Density Residential (R-1-SF, South Site) to High-Density Residential (R- 4-SF) for both sites in order to permit the highest possible number of residential units. Minor adjustments between the boundaries of the C/OS and proposed R -4-SF zones to reflect the existing mapped edge of riparian habitat for SLO Creek and accurately identify the resulting developable area for each project site. Zone the Hayashi Property as Agriculture (AG) and/or Open Space (C/OS) in coordination with the corresponding land use designations (only to be pursued if the Annexation is initiated; excludes areas proposed for the public right -of- way improvements [i.e., LOVR Bypass and Bob Jones Trail extension]). Page 235 of 464 Item 8a The scope for the Annexation includes the following: Adjustment of the City limits to include the Hayashi Property to specifically facilitate construction of the LOVR Bypass and Bob Jones Trail extension. Aside from the bypass and trail extension, the remaining area of the Hayashi Property would be designated and zoned for AG and/or C/OS to maintain the majority of the 44-acre parcel for agricultural operations and/or protect it for open space. The urban reserve line (URL) will remain, and no changes to its location are proposed (Figure 5 – Annexation Map). All residential development would occur inside the URL (delineated as the bolded green line in Figure 5 below) and only a portion of the LOVR Bypass, which crosses onto the Hayashi Property (described as the gray annexation area below) to connect to the South Higuera Street/Buckley Road intersection, would be located outside of the URL. Figure 5 – Annexation Map Page 236 of 464 Item 8a The Council’s policy determination on whether to move forward with processing these applications would provide the basis for the Broadstone Village project. Please note that the General Plan Amendment and Rezone, specifically the need to coordinate between the proposed land use designations and zones, would require accompanying application requirements and scopes if pursued. Therefore, the Council would need to initiate both, or neither, of these applications in coordination. While the Annexation application is technically independent of the other applications and can be initiated without the other requests, annexation would only be necessary if the Council is supportive of the LOVR Bypass and Bob Jones Trail extension as features of the project. If Council is not supportive of the proposed bypass and trail extension and does not provide direction to initiate the Annexation to facilitate these features, the overall project scope would be revised and reduced as described in the bulleted lists above. As such, the Applicant would only pursue a project within City limits (i.e., only on the North and South Sites), and an alternative site plan with an increased total of 240 multifamily units would be proposed for the South Site because there would be additional area to construct residential units without the bypass and trail exte nsion (Figure 6 – No Bypass Alternative). Without the annexation and associated bypass and trail extension, the project would include a total of 448 units, instead of the 409 units proposed with these features. Additional preliminary analysis on anticipated project impacts without the LOVR bypass as a feature is provided in the proceeding discussion. Figure 6 – No Bypass Alternative Page 237 of 464 Item 8a Should Council provide staff with direction to move forward with most (i.e., only General Plan Amendment and Rezoning) or all of the requested applications (i.e., General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Annexation), these applications and any requested revisions and/or reductions to the project scope, including the environmental review, would be processed. Detailed evaluation of these initial applications would inform project requirements (e.g., development envelope, construction phasing, design requirements, etc.). If these initial applications establishing the basis for the Broadstone Village project (i.e., General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Annexation, if pursued) are eventually approved by the City Council, the Applicant would return and apply for the s ubsequent entitlement applications (i.e., Major Development Review, Subdivision, etc.), which would contain more detailed information on the project design, features, etc., of each phase. Consistency with General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs For Council’s early consideration and to assist with the overall policy determination for these applications, City staff has provided a preliminary analysis for consistency with the General Plan, particularly the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, and Conservation and Open Space Elements. This preliminary analysis is based on information available thus far, and detailed information and analysis would be forthcoming as part of the review process, if Council directs staff to move forward with processing the applications. Land Use Element (LUE) Site Constraints and Project Considerations LUE Chapter 8 identifies Special Focus Areas throughout the City, where there are complex development parameters requiring an innovative design approach to facilitate development. The project site (i.e., both North and South Sites) is a Special Focus Area, referred to as the LOVR Creekside Area in LUE Program 8.12 that is heavily constrained by flood potential and limited circulation access to the sites. As part of any future development project, LUE Program 8.12 requires that (a) agricultural designations be maintained along the west side of the site; (b) compatibility with adjacent residential areas to the east be required; (c) permanent protection of the SLO Creek be addressed; and (d) the development accommodate any changes to the LOVR right-of-way and Highway 101 Interchange (which is a traffic relief project that was completed in 2016). Since the proposed development must account for the existing site constraints, special design approaches are to be considered as part of the review process to achieve the development potential of these constrained sites. In accordance with the intent of LUE Chapter 8 (Special Focus Areas), the Applicant is requesting the City consider annexing the Hayashi Property to specifically facilitate construction of the proposed LOVR Bypass and Bob Jones Trail extension (Figure 3 – LOVR Bypass, Figure 4 – Hayashi Property). Construction of the bypass would address circulation issues related to site development; however, it would cross two (2) properties that are under different jurisdictions. Preliminary communications with County of San Luis Obispo staff indicates the County is not interested in pursuing the bypass road but would be supportive of the City’s Page 238 of 464 Item 8a Annexation and any resulting road improvement if that allows efficient processing of the project (Attachment C – County of SLO Department of Planning & Building, Public Works Letter). Staff is specifically requesting feedback from the Council on whether to initiate the Annexation to specifically facilitate construction of the LOVR Bypass and Bob Jones Trail extension. Additional preliminary analysis on the Annexation request is provided in the proceeding discussion and other discussion sections for the Circulation and Conservation and Open Space Elements. For compliance with LUE Program 8.12, the detailed project review would include an evaluation of the identified issues related to flooding control, site access, creek protection, agriculture protection, and neighborhood compatibility and require that these issues be addressed as part of the project, regardless of whether the Annexation and LOVR Bypass are pursued. If the Annexation is not initiated, the Applicant wo uld pursue an alternative site plan for the South Site (Figure 6 – No Bypass Alternative). Subsequent studies and detailed analysis for the environmental review would inform design requirements (e.g., flooding potential, site access, and on-site and off-site circulation improvements) and appropriate mitigation strategies (e.g., to protect prime farmland, preserve creek habitat, etc.), including a possible reduction in scope if the project is found to have adverse environmental impacts or cause significant a dverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the sites, neighbors, or the general public as described in LUE Policy 2.4.3 (Density and Site Constraints). In addition, land use compatibility with the existing neighborhood would be evaluated as part of the application process, including but not limited to, reviewing the design, scale, and placement of new buildings in relation to the location of neighboring residences, and exploring the potential provision of secondary access, where possible and supported by the neighboring developments. Annexation as a Growth Management Tool While the Hayashi Property is not specifically identified for annexation in the LUE, the property is located in the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), as determined by the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which is a long-range planning tool representing areas that can be eventually annexed and may be opportunities for shared facilities such as roadway connections, open space preservation, and agricultural lands preservation. Per LUE Policy 1.13.3 (Annexation Purpose and Timing) and Policy 1.13.8 (Open Space), the City may annex areas for development as well as permanent open space protection. As proposed, the Annexation is intended to facilitate construction of the LOVR Bypass (to address circulation issues related to site development for the project) and the Bob Jones Trail extension. Aside from these improvements, the remaining majority of this 44 -acre parcel would be designated and zoned to be protected as agricultural lands and/or open space. Please note that all residential development for the Broadstone project would occur on properties (i.e., North and South Sites) within the City limits and existing URL. Page 239 of 464 Item 8a Housing Element (HE) Rezoning Opportunity Per HE Program 6.13 and Table D-2 (Areas to be Considered for Possible Rezoning, 2019) in Appendix D (Residential Land Resources), the City is to consider General Plan Amendments (and Rezonings) to rezone specific areas for higher-density, infill housing, where compatible with surrounding development. Both the Broadstone North and South Sites are identified as sites (K) and (L) for possible rezoning to Medium-High Density (R- 3) and estimated to support 102 and 109 dwelling units1, respectively. It should be noted that the development capacity of a site is dependent on its size, zoning, average slope, and the existence of any natural features (e.g., creeks, significant native trees, etc.) as environmental constraints may reduce the number of dwellings that can reasonably be developed. Based on the lot size, configuration, and identified site constraints related to (a) flooding potential, (b) limited circulation access due to proximity to the LOVR and Highway 101 Interchange, and (c) limited LOVR frontage of these project sites, the HE identified that these project sites may be suitable for R-3 rezoning. To evaluate and potentially permit the highest number of units possible as part of the Broadstone project (i.e., R-4 zoning allows the highest residential density), the Applicant has submitted General Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications to change both sites to the HDR land use designation and R-4 zone, instead of the MDR land use designation and R-3 zone as contemplated in the HE. The table below summarizes the proposed land uses along with requested changes in the underlying land use designation and zones that would affect the maximum number of units that can be permitted for the project (Table 1 – Summary of Land Uses, Designation/Zone Changes, and Density). Table 1 – Summary of Land Uses, Designation/Zone Changes, and Density2 Existing (Acres) North Site South Site Total C/OS Zone 3.09 5.03 8.12 R-1 Zone - 8.22 8.22 R-2 Zone 6.84 - 6.84 Gross Area 9.93 13.25 23.18 Net Developable Area (Excludes C/OS Zone) 6.84 8.22 15.06 1 Per the HE, dwelling unit estimates are based on a 75 percent development efficiency (to account for compliance with applicable development standards and any possible site constraints) and assumes that each dwelling unit is equivalent to one (1) density un it or a two-bedroom unit. 2 All of the density calculations identified in this Table refer to density units, which are to be differentiated from dwelling units. For reference, the differences between density units and dwelling units are described in Section 17.70.040(A)(1) (Density Calculation). Page 240 of 464 Item 8a Max Density Units (No Changes to Designation/Zone) 82.08 57.54 139.62 Proposed (Acres) North Site South Site Total C/OS Zone 3.09 5.03 8.12 R-4 Zone 6.84 6.84 13.68 Streets (Includes LOVR Bypass and Bob Jones Trail) - 1.38 1.38 Net Developable Area (Excludes C/OS Zone and Streets) 6.84 6.84 13.68 Max Density Units (With R-4 Zoning as Proposed) 164.16 164.16 328.323 Max Density Units (With R-3 Zoning as Contemplated in the HE) 136.8 136.8 273.6 Difference in Max Density Units Between the R-3 and R-4 Rezonings 27.36 27.36 54.72 While the Applicant has requested the densest residential zone (i.e., R-4) for these properties, the subsequent detailed review, including the environmental review, would include a comprehensive analysis to inform requirements of constructing and serving the project. As described in the preceding discussion section for the LUE, design requirements and/or mitigation strategies, including a possible reduction in scope, resulting from the review process would be incorporated into the project as needed. Based on preliminary information available thus far, exploring the possibility of permitting the highest number of residential units for these sites would be consistent with various HE goals, policies, and programs intended to promote housing production and affordability. 3 Per Section 17.70.040(A)(1) (Density Calculation), the allowable number of dwelling units may exceed the maximum number of density units, if a development project incorporates smaller unit types (i.e., studios and one-bedrooms, which are counted as less than one [1] density unit each). Therefore, it would be possible for the Broadstone project to include a total of 409 dwelling units, based on the 328.32 density units allowed, due to the number of studios and one -bedrooms proposed. In addition, the project includes an approximate 5.6 percent density bonus, in accordance with State Density Bonus Law, for senior housing to provide an increased number of units for the overall development. Page 241 of 464 Item 8a Type of Housing Units As proposed, the project includes the construction of 208 senior housing units and 201 multifamily units with a variety of unit types ranging from studios to three -bedrooms. (Note – if the Annexation application is not initiated by Council for processing and the bypass is subsequently not pursued as part of the project, an alternative site plan with a total of 240 multifamily units for the South Site, as shown in Figure 6 above, would be pursued.) In accordance with Government Code Section 65915, the senior housing units, including the approximate 5.6 percent density bonus, would be provided with the appropriate age- restriction. Because the Applicant is utilizing State Density Bonus Law to provide 208 age- restricted units, the project is exempt from the City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirements per Section 17.138.020(A)(4) (Applicability and Exclusions). Therefore, affordable units and/or in-lieu fees are not required or proposed as part of the project. As proposed, the project would be consistent with HE Goal 8 (Special Housing Needs), particularly Policy 8.1, by providing a diverse variety of multifamily housing units that can meet the needs of large families and single parents as well as providing senior housing units. While the project, as proposed with the senior housing units and density bonus request, is exempt from local inclusionary housing requirements and therefore not required to provide affordable units or pay in-lieu fees, it should be noted that HE Policy 2.4 encourages housing production for all financial strata of the City’s population as allocated in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In addition, Appendix C (Housing Constraints & Resources) of the HE states that large parcels in the R-3 and R-4 zones (such as these project sites and their proposed rezonings) offer the best opportunities to encourage affordable housing because these large sites have high residential development potential and can facilitate a variety of housing types. Circulation Element (CE) LOVR Bypass Connection Per CE Policy 16.1.3 (City Funding), the City’s Financial Plan and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shall support the programs, plans, and projects identified in the CE. As detailed in Table 5 (Transportation Capital Projects) and Appendix D (Summary of Circulation Element Projects and Programs), the LOVR Bypass is identified as a new connection and project that shall be analyzed as part of (a) a proposed development project in the LOVR Creekside Area (LUE Program 8.12); and/or (b) a City-initiated traffic analysis of the subarea to determine feasibility of connecting a roadway from Highway 101 to Higuera Street. Potential funding sources identified for this connection include developer construction, development impact fees, grant funding, and the general fund. As proposed, the project includes construction of the LOVR Bypass, consistent with CE Table 5 and Appendix D, and the request for Annexation of the Hayashi Property would facilitate its construction because the affected parcels (i.e., South Site and Hayashi Property) are located in different jurisdictions with different interests in the bypass road, as described in the preceding discussion under the LUE section. Specific funding sources for the LOVR Bypass have not been identified at this time, and preliminary recommendations regarding the cost allocation are discussed in more detail below. Page 242 of 464 Item 8a Bob Jones Trail Per CE Policies 4.1.4 (New Development) and 4.1.6 (Bikeway Development with Road Improvements), the City shall construct bikeway facilities as designated in the Bicycle Transportation Plan (now referred to as the Active Transportation Plan) as part of new development, where feasible. The City’s 2021 Active Transportation Plan (Plan) identifi es a planned connection of the Bob Jones Trail shared-use path between LOVR and the South Higuera Street/Buckley Road intersection as a Tier 2 (medium priority) project; however, the Plan notes that this trail would be elevated to a Tier 1 (highest priorit y) project if the County is successful in advancing the planned regional extension of the Bob Jones Trail from the City of San Luis Obispo south to Avila Beach. The County’s trail extension is funded and expected to proceed in phases; thus, the portion in the City from LOVR to the South Higuera Street/Buckley Road intersection is considered a Tier 1 project. As proposed, the project would construct this segment of the Bob Jones Trail parallel to the proposed bypass road. Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Annexation of the Hayashi Property Per COSE Program 8.7.1(B) (Protect Open Space Resources), the City is to take various actions to protect open space, including annexing and applying AG and C/OS zoning to private property where appropriate and consistent with General Plan goals and policies. Aside from areas where the proposed LOVR Bypass and Bob Jones Trail extension would be located, annexation of the Hayashi Property would result in the preservation of agricultural lands and open space for most of the 44 -acre property. In annexing the property, the City would proactively acquire land into its jurisdiction and permanently protect resources through agreements and easements and ensure no future development can occur. Consistency with Major City Goals Housing & Homelessness was prioritized as a Major City Goal in the 2023-2025 Financial Plan to support the expansion of housing options and facilitate housing production. As proposed, the project includes 208 senior housing units and 201 multifamily units, ranging from studio to three-bedroom units, to provide a diverse range of housing options. Impacts on Adjacent Areas and Public Services If Council provides direction to move forward with processing the application(s), i mpacts of the project on adjacent parcels and shared resources (e.g., emergency services, parks, etc.) would be analyzed in detail as part of the review process . The detailed analysis would evaluate impacts of the project, including but not limited to, the proposed phasing, environmental review, etc. Page 243 of 464 Item 8a Specific Issue Areas for Consideration While the project conceptually aligns with the policy direction in the General Plan, City staff has identified the following issue areas that the Council should consider and provide input on if the project is initiated: Issue Area No. 1 – Annexation, LOVR Bypass, and Bob Jones Trail Should the proposed bypass road and trail extension (and therefore, the Annexation request) be included as part of the project? This issue is related to whether, and how, the Annexation application should be initiated. Considerations As noted in this report, details about circulation and transportation impacts will be studied in depth if the project review moves forward. A preliminary evaluation of the bypass has been completed, and as proposed, its inclusion would address circulation-related issues for the project sites and immediate vicinity. However, if the bypass is not supportable, the following challenges related to project design and traffic operations in the vicinity may arise: Without the bypass, it is unlikely that the site driveways on LOVR will meet warrants for the installation of a traffic signal, and the initial design review indicates that a roundabout is likely to be infeasible at this location. Without a signal or roundabout at this intersection, left turn access out of the North and South Sites will need to be restricted per the City’s access management standards, signalized pedestrian/bicycle crossing will not be available at the intersection, and there will be no opportunity to provide connectivity between Los Verdes Park One and Los Verdes Park Two. Operations at the intersection of South Higuera Street/LOVR will fall below the City’s adopted level of service (LOS) and queueing standards in the future with or without this development project. The bypass road will relieve traffic volume at this intersection, eliminating or at least reducing the resulting delays and vehicle queues. Without the bypass, widening would be needed at the South Higuera Street/LOVR intersection to mitigate projected operational impacts with or without this development project. However, it would be infeasible to widen this intersection without significant encroachment into adjacent private properties (i.e., Los Verdes Park One, San Luis Business Center, and the Montessori Children’s School) on each corner of the intersection. Without the bypass, there would be a less convenient crossing to and from the Bob Jones Trail extension and the trail would have less visibility, increasing potential for vagrancy and public safety concerns. It should also be noted that the project transportation impact study and environmental review will require the detailed analysis of potential impacts to the neighboring residential developments (i.e., Los Verdes Park One and Two), traffic operations within the greater vicinity (LOVR/US Highway 101 Interchange, LOVR and Higuera Street corridors, etc.), and considerations for scenarios with and without completion of the Prado/US Highway 101 interchange. Page 244 of 464 Item 8a The CE identifies a range of potential funding sources for the bypass, including developer construction, development impact fees, grant funding, and the general fund . However, the bypass is not identified in the City’s current or contemplated Capital Improvement Plan, nor does staff anticipate that the bypass would be constructed in any foreseeable future without development of the Broadstone project properties. Additionally, the bypass is not explicitly included in the City’s current transportation impact fee program because it is not currently within the City’s incorporated area nor in the City’s roadway system. As a result, contributions to the bypass from the transportation impact fee program will require the City to modify the program to add this project and begin collecting fees f rom future projects that may contribute to the need for the bypass. W hile the project presents an opportunity to acquire property to construct the public improvements (i.e., LOVR Bypass and Bob Jones Trail extension), construction of these improvements wou ld also result in ongoing maintenance costs to the City that would not otherwise be incurred without the project. If the bypass is to be included, it is anticipated that its construction and maintenance would need to be supported by a combination of developer contribution, transportation impact fees, and the CFD over the North and South Sites. Because the bypass would not be constructed by the City absent this project, and in light of other significant capital project needs and costs facing the City in th e next ten-year period, staff does not recommend committing to general fund contributions toward the construction of the bypass for the reasons stated above. If Council provides direction that the bypass and trail extension are supportable as part of the p roject, details of the anticipated costs and agreements for reimbursement from future transportation impact fee revenue, as well as other funding strategies for ongoing maintenance needs, would be developed and further refined as part of the application review process. If these public improvements (and the associated Annexation request) are supportable, City staff is seeking confirmation of staff’s recommendation that funding strategies for the construction and maintenance of the LOVR bypass be developed with the Applicant during the review process with the understanding that general fund contributions to its construction would not be provided. Issue Area No. 2 – Density and Residential Development Potential Should the proposed High Density Residential (HDR) land use designation and R-4 zone be considered for the North and South Sites? This issue is related to whether, and how, the General Plan Amendment and Rezone applications should be initiated. Considerations Instead of the MDR land use designation and R-3 zone that were contemplated for these project sites in the HE, the currently proposed project includes General Plan Amendment and Rezone applications to allow a HDR land use designation and R-4 zone to support a higher number of units on the project sites. As summarized in Table 1 above, the R-4 rezoning would allow 328.32 density units while the R-3 rezoning would allow 273.6 density units, which results in a difference of 54.72 density units. In either rezoning scenario, environmental review would be conducted as part of any development project to ensure that site constraints, including but not limited to, the (a) flooding potential, (b) limited circulation access due to proximity to the LOVR and Highway 101 Interchange, Page 245 of 464 Item 8a and (c) limited LOVR frontage of these sites are appropriately addressed as part of the review process. With the understanding that the subsequent environmental review (if processing is initiated by the City Council) would provide additional details and analysis on the project constraints and impacts, City staff is seeking initial direction from Council to determine if the General Plan Amendment and Rezone applications for the HDR land use designation and R-4 zone are supportable to pursue. Issue Area No. 3 – Affordable Units Should affordable units be required as part of the project (even if the project is exempt from the City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirements as proposed)? This issue would affect the project scope by requiring the inclusion of affordable units to provide deed-restricted units for very low-, low-, and/or moderate-income levels. Considerations As proposed, the project includes a total of 409 units consisting of (a) 208 for-sale senior housing units, which includes an approximate 5.6 percent density bonus, on the North Site and (b) an undefined mix of 201 for-sale and for-rent multifamily units on the South Site. Note – the Applicant is exploring the possibility of providing 165 for-sale units on the South Site as described in the project description. Because the Applicant is utilizing State Density Bonus Law to provide 208 age -restricted units, the project is exempt from the City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirements and not required to provide affordable units and/or pay in-lieu fees. However, it should be noted that the project includes a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the R-4 zone, which results in approximately 55 additional density units from the anticipated R-3 zone per the HE and would enable an overall higher number of units for the project. For the Council’s reference, preliminary calculations, based on the noted assumptions, are provided below to demonstrate the possible numbers of affordable units, if the project did not include a density bonus and was therefore not exempt from inclusionary housing requirements. Per Section 17.138.040(B), affordable units would be required as follows: Ten percent (10%) of proposed for-sale dwelling units consisting of: o Five percent (5%) for low-income households (fractional units may be rounded down to the next whole number), and o Five percent (5%) for moderate-income households (fractional units may be rounded up to the next whole number) Page 246 of 464 Item 8a Option No. 1 – If accounting for the overall number of units on both the North and South Sites4, there would be a total of 3555 (senior and multifamily) for-sale units, which would require 35.5 affordable for-sale units. These units can be provided through a combination of low- and moderate-income levels as described above and with or without in-lieu fee payment6. Option No. 2 – If accounting for the assumed 165 for-sale multifamily units on only the South Site (and excluding the senior units that would be age-restricted on the North Site), the project would be required to provide 16.5 affordable for-sale units. Similar to Option No. 1, these units can be provided as a combination of the identified affordability levels and with or without in-lieu fee payment. Six percent (6%) of proposed for-rent dwelling units consisting of: o Three percent (3%) for very low-income households (fractional units may be rounded down to the next whole number), and o Three percent (3%) for low-income households (fractional units may be rounded up to the next whole number). If 36 for-rent multifamily units are proposed on the South Site, the project would be required to provide 2.16 affordable for-rent units, which can be provided as a combination of the identified affordability levels and with or without in -lieu fee payment. These preliminary calculations show the project would be required to provide a total of 37.66 affordable units (35.5 for-sale units for both Sites and 2.16 for-rent units on the South Site) or 18.66 affordable units (16.5 for-sale and 2.16 for-rent units for only the South Site, excluding the age-restricted units on the North Site) based on the noted assumptions. With the understanding that the project is requesting a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the R-4 zone, which results in approximately 55 additional density units from the anticipated R-3 zone for these sites, staff is seeking feedback on whether it would be appropriate to require affordable units as part of the project, even if the project is exempt from the City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirements. 4 For the purposes of these preliminary calculations, the number of additional senior units achieved through the approximate 5.6 percent density bonus is removed. As proposed, the 5.6 percent bonus would allow an increase of approximately 9.19 density units, which can equate to 18 studio units (which is the maximum number of additional dwelling units with the density bonus request). Therefore, it is assumed that there would be a reduction of 18 units from the proposed 208 senior units to provide 190 senior units without the density bonus request. In addition, it is assumed that the 201 multifamily units on the South Site consists of 165 for-sale and 36 for-rent units. 5 This sum includes the assumed 190 for-sale senior units on the North Site and 165 for-sale multifamily units on the South Site. 6 For more information on possible combinations to address the inclusionary unit requirements, please refer to Section 17.138.080(A) (Fractional Numbers). Page 247 of 464 Item 8a Next Steps Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on whether to proceed with processing the project applications as proposed. This early consideration is an opportunity for Council to provide input on the project at the beginning of the review process. It should be noted that the current request for Council initiation does not constitute approval of any aspect of the project and only begins the required review process for these applications. If Council provides direction to process these applications, staff is also seeking confirmation of the recommendation related to funding for the construction of the bypass and direction on the specific issue areas identified in the Council Agenda Report as they would affect the resulting project scope. Council may also provide direction regarding any other land use, design, fiscal, or other project-related element at the time of initiation for staff and the applicant to evaluate and address as part of the entitlement review process. If Council authorizes processing of the project and its associated applications, City staff will process the project through the following standard steps, including but not limited to: 1. Development review by City staff, including preparation of the: a. Environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); b. Plan for Services (i.e., analysis of the annexation area’s impact on overall City services and implementation of the recommendations derived from such analysis); and c. Pre-Annexation Agreement (i.e., zoning clarifications, including allowable uses and applicable standards; required public infrastructure and utility improvements to be completed; payment of applicable fees, etc.). 2. Airport Land Use Commission public hearing for a consistency determination with the Airport Land Use Plan 3. Active Transportation Committee public hearing for a recommendation 4. Planning Commission public hearing for a recommendation 5. City Council public hearing for consideration of project approval (and a resolution of intent is applicable, if the Annexation is pursued) 6. Submittal to LAFCO (applicable, if the Annexation is pursued) Public Engagement The item is on the April 1, 2025 City Council Agenda for consideration of the initiation of these applications and noticing was provided for this hearing. The public has an opportunity to comment on the item at and/or before the hearing. If the Council authorizes staff to proceed with processing, there would be additional public hearings as part of the detailed review and legal notices would be provided as required for each public hearing. In addition, the Applicant has directly engaged on multiple occasions with the neighboring communities (i.e., Los Verdes Park One and Two) to provide information on the project and obtain input on the proposed design. Page 248 of 464 Item 8a CONCURRENCE The Council Agenda Report was reviewed by the Community Development Department, Transportation Division, Finance Department, City Attorney, and City Administration for concurrence. If Council directs staff to proceed with processing the se applications, all relevant departments and divisions would evaluate the project in detail as part of the review process. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended action in this report because the Council’s action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (Project) or commit the agency to a definite course of action in regard to a project as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15352 (Approval). If the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, a nd Annexation applications and other necessary decisions move forward, the project would be subject to the appropriate environmental review as required per CEQA, which will be presented at subsequent public hearings. FISCAL IMPACT Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2023-25 Funding Identified: No Fiscal Analysis: Funding Sources Total Budget Available Current Funding Request Remaining Balance Annual Ongoing Cost General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 State Federal Fees Other Total $0 $0 $0 $0 There is no net fiscal impact related to considering the initiation of the project. If the Council directs staff to proceed, the Applicant will be required to fund the review and processing of the applications, including services for a contract planner, an d associated analysis and environmental review in accordance with the City’s fee schedule. The Applicant has paid the deposits required for the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Annexation applications to initiate the review process, and additional fees will be required to review and process subsequent applications related to the project. Page 249 of 464 Item 8a ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Direct staff to move forward with processing the project applications, as proposed. This alternative includes processing of the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Annexation applications, as proposed. These applications would serve as the basis for the Broadstone Village project and all subsequent entitlement applications (e.g., Major Development Review, Subdivision, etc.) and analysis requirements (e.g., environmental review). 2. Direct staff to move forward with processing the project application(s), but with input from Council on any desired project revisions and/or directional items related to the project evaluation, including confirmation and feedback on the specific issue areas identified by staff in the report. This alternative would require that the Council provide staff and the applicant with clear direction on any desired project revisions, including but not limited to, the type of applications to process (i.e., all or a combination of the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Annexation applications), changes to the overall project scope, etc. as well as any directional items related to the project evaluation, including confirmation and feedback on the specific issue areas identified by staff, such as specific analysis or study requirements that would be necessary or beneficial when the Council reviews and makes a determination on the project in the future. If Council provides direction to process the General Plan Amendment and Rezone, but not the Annexation, the project description would be revised as described in the report, and the bypass would not be pursued as part of the project. Subsequent review of the General Plan Amendment and Rezone applications would focus on evaluating and addressing impacts of the revised project description, including anticipated project impacts to the South Higuera/LOVR intersection, during the review process. 3. Continue review of the initiation to a later hearing date and request additional information necessary for the Council to determine whether to move forward with processing the applications. This alternative would require that the Council provide staff and the applicant with clear direction on any additional information required to make a policy determination on whether to process. It should be noted that the Council’s early consideration of these applications includes a preliminary overview of the project at the beginning of the review process. Since the project is in early stages of the overall entitlement and permitting process, detailed information and/or analysis is limited and would be forthcoming, if the review moves forward. 4. Direct staff to not move forward with processing the project applications. Per Municipal Code Section 17.130.020(C), the Council, upon making specific findings in reference to specific General Plan provisions, may direct the (Community Development) Director to reject the applications as inconsistent with overall General Plan policy direction. ATTACHMENTS A - Broadstone Project Description B - Broadstone Project Plans C - County of SLO Department of Planning & Building, Public Works Letter Page 250 of 464 Broadstone North and South Project Description and Summary Summary and Requested Actions A project is proposed at 12501 Los Osos Valley Road (APN 053-161-020) and 12500 Los Osos Valley Road (APN: 053-141-013) that will provide for 208 senior age-restricted units and 201 rental and ownership residential units (“the project”). See Figure 1 for the project location. The project directly addresses and fulfills City Council priorities for the development of higher intensity residential uses at this location. These sites are Sites “J” and “K” referenced in Housing Element Policy 6.13 to “Consider General Plan amendments, as projects are proposed, to rezone commercial, manufacturing, or public facility zoned areas for higher-density, infill or mixed-use housing, where compatible with surrounding development.” The proposed project would include approximately 208 age- restricted senior units on the “North” site on 6.84 net acres, and 201 units on 6.84 net acres on the “South” Site. While on separate sites, the two properties are functionally related because of the access issues to Los Osos Valley Road, and their collective treatment in the City Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). During the adoption of the LUCE, these properties were identified as the “LOVR Creekside” area. According to LUCE Policy 8.1.2 this area “…was to have flooding and access issues resolved prior to development.” Also, future develop- ment is to be compatible with adjacent residential areas (Los Verdes) to the east. San Luis Obispo Creek will need to be addressed as part of any proposed development. Also, during the LUCE, a new street was considered that would connect South Higuera to LOVR by way of an “LOVR Bypass” through an extension of Buckley Road through the property to the south of the South property (the “Hayashi” property). There was no final resolution of that new connection in the LUCE, but the connection was to be further analyzed and re-evaluated as part of and development proposed in the Creekside Special Plan- ning Area, including conducting a detailed subarea traffic analysis to determine final feasibility of implementing the LOVR Bypass, and the beneficial effects of the project on relieving traffic congestion and queues at the LOVR/Hi- guera intersection, additional access for Los Verdes Unit No. 1 and Los Verdes Unit No. 2, and impacts to sensitive noise receptors, agriculture operations, open space, creek, traffic and biological resources. Based on a review of the design of the road with the City and County, the feasibility of constructing the roadway will depend on annexing the Hayashi property to the City of San Luis Obispo so that the bike path and by- pass can be located and designed according to city standards, and so the City will have maintenance and enforce- ment responsibilities. The issues related to annexation are discussed in greater detail herein, including the con- sistency with City land use and growth policies, fiscal impacts, and development phasing. The annexation is also necessary to implement the extension of the remaining City portion of the Bob Jones Trail (a Tier 2 improvement in the Active Transportation Plan) from Los Osos Valley Road to South Higuera. As noted herein, the annexation of the Hayashi property would not result in the development of that property. The property is subject to a conserva- tion easement that would be transferred to the City upon annexation. Further, while the Hayashi property is within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), it is not in the City’s Urban Reserve Line (URL), and the project is not request- ing that it be moved. The development plans for the individual properties are shown on Figure 3 for Broadstone North, and Fig- ure 4 for Broadstone South. Both the North and the South components are being proposed as one project for CEQA and entitlement purposes, along with the extension of the Bob Jones Trail and the LOVR Bypass. An alterna- tive site plan has been prepared for the South site as an “actionable alternative” if the LOVR Bypass is deemed in- feasible or undesirable. This “actionable alternative” is shown in Figure 5. ATTACHMENT A Page 251 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 2 March 17, 2025 Conformance With Major City Goals The project meets a number of Major City Goals, as well as fulfilling important Housing Element and Circu- lation Element policies and programs, as follows. Economic Recovery and Fiscal Sustainability: The project will provide a range of housing, These kinds of housing are necessary to support the growth of the local economy. The project’s age-restricted units will also provide housing options for those already living in the community or new to the community that pro- vide appropriate features and amenities so that these residents’ homes can be made available for fami- lies. Development of the properties will provide significant one-time and ongoing revenue through devel- opment impact fees and tax revenue, without significant additional costs to the City. As noted herein, implementation of the LOVR Bypass would reduce the financial obligations for the General Fund to ad- dress road and bike improvements in the vicinity. Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion: The project will promote a mixed-income, multi-generational neighbor- hood like those described in the Housing Element that would include a wide range of for-sale and for-rent housing that are fully integrated into one geographic area. Housing & Homelessness: The sites are identified in the Housing Element for higher density residential development to ensure that the City will meet its housing supply obligations. The project would also in- crease the quality and livability of the existing and proposed neighborhoods by increasing and improving traffic operations, avoiding impacts to the Los Verdes neighborhoods that will result from road improve- ments that are necessary without the LOVR Bypass, and will increase the compliance of the Los Verdes neighborhoods with the City’s current Fire Code and Fire and Emergency Apparatus Access Requirements. Climate Action, Open Space & Sustainable Transportation: The project will construct the LOVR Bypass and the Bob Jones Trail between Los Osos Valley Road and Higuera. These connections will provide a safer connection for pedestrians and bicycle traffic along the LOVR and Higuera corridors which are congested. The project also provides the opportunity for secondary connections for Los Verdes Park No. I and Los Verdes Park No. II. These developments do not currently have adequate emergency public safety vehicle access that conforms to current City building codes. Broadstone North and Broadstone South show where limited offers of access are to be provided. The project would also, after annexation of the Hayashi property, allow the city to control the land uses and development for that property. The project, includ- ing the annexation of the Hayashi Property, will allow the City to fully implement the Active Transporta- tion Plan. City policy allows use of annexation to “protect open space” as well as to “enable appropriate develop- ment”. This policy has been used by the City to actively annex open space in the Margarita (South Hills), Laguna (Laguna Lake), Airport Area (Chevron Open Space, Buckley road corridor, airport open space), Froom Ranch (upper terrace and creeks), Avila Ranch (Tank Farm Creek, Buckley Road frontage), and San Luis Ranch. The City has always used annexations to preserve open space as well as provide public facili- ties. LAFCo defines the Sphere of Influence as the area anticipated to be developed in the next 20 years. “The City may annex an area long before development is to occur, and the City may annex areas which are to remain permanently as open space.” Finally, reports prepared for the project have determined that without the bypass there are traffic ap- proach failures for north bound left turns and south bound through trips and an LOS of F for the Los Osos Valley Road/Higuera intersection. With the bypass there are no movement failures. Central Coast Trans- portation Consultants (CCTC) concluded that bike/ped facilities cannot be adequately accommodated at and through the LOVR/South Higuera intersection without the bypass. The bypass is necessary to achieve minimum multimodal LOS requirements at that intersection. ATTACHMENT A Page 252 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 3 March 17, 2025 Requested Action: General Plan Land Use and Zoning Amendments, and Annexation Per Housing Element Policy 6.13 the request is to change the current land use designation for Broadstone North from 6.8 acres of Medium Density Residential (R-2 Zoning) and 3.13 acres of C/OS to 6.84 acres of High Den- sity Residential and 3.09 acres of C/OS. Broadstone South would be changed from 7.73 acres of Low Density Resi- dential (R-1 Zoning) and 5.92 acres of C/OS to 6.84 acres of High Density Residential, 1.38 acres for public rights of way, and 5.03 acres of C/OS. Table 1 shows a summary of the land use and zoning changes proposed for each of the Project parcels. For Broadstone North, there is a small increase (.04 acres) in the amount of developable land because of a more precise mapping of the riparian edge. For Broadstone South, the increase is somewhat more significant due to FEMA’s change in the designated floodway and the results of the survey of the riparian edge, with the total developable area increasing by 0.89 acres from 7.33 acres to 8.22 acres; however, the bypass takes up 1.38 acres of Broadstone South, so there is net reduction of developable land. The overall number of permitted density units for the two Project sites would increase from 139.6 under the existing zoning to 328.3 under the pro- posed zoning. The Hayashi property is subject to a conservation easement that would be retained and it is pro- posed to have a General Plan land use designation of Open Space and/or Agriculture with a corresponding zoning designation. Requested Action: General Plan Circulation Element Amendments Based on the results of the traffic study and circulation analysis for the LOVR Bypass and the Bob Jones Trail, the Circulation Element map shall be amended to reflect the recommended alignment for each. The LOVR Bypass will be designed to a special Residential Collector road standard that will ensure appropriate traffic calming, and compatibility with existing and future residential developments. An appropriate portion of the LOVR Bypass shall be included for reimbursement from Transportation Impact Fee funding in lieu of existing planned improve- ments to LOVR/Higuera, and planned improvements to South Higuera between Suburban Road and Buckley Road. A traffic signal at Los Osos Valley Road/LOVR Bypass shall also be designated and findings included to provide for a traffic signal. An appropriate portion of the traffic signal shall be included for reimbursement from Transportation Impact Fee funding. The Active Transportation Plan shall also be amended to reflect the revised alignment for the Bob Jones Trail. Requested Action: Hayashi Property Annexation Consultations with the County and the City have revealed that the feasibility of the bypass is dependent on annexation of the Hayashi property, APN: 076-081-030. City Land Use Element Policy 1.13.3. permits annexa- tion “…as a growth management tool, both to enable appropriate urban development and to protect open space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban de- velopment occurs. The City may annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas which are to remain permanently as open space. An area may be annexed in phases, consistent with the city- approved specific plan or development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation and development will reflect topog- raphy, needed capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and existing and proposed land uses and roads.” Including the Hayashi property in the City limits will ensure that the roadways and bike paths that are de- veloped will be to City standards. Currently the Hayashi property is located in the County, and outside of the des- ignated Urban Reserve line, so Land Use Element Policy 7.10.B, which requires development to City standards. Currently, County standards and County zoning standards would apply. LAFCo policies (San Luis Obispo County LAFCo Policy 2.2 “City Annexation Policies”) permit annexations if they are consistent with General Plan, within the Sphere of Influence, and if the loss of prime agricultural land is mitigated. The property proposed for annexation is bounded on about half (47.4%) of its perimeter by existing city limits and is therefore “substantially surrounded” by existing City boundaries, in conformance with LAFCo Agricultural Policy 2.9.2. The parcel to be annexed is oth- erwise not bordered by any agricultural lands. Upon development of the Broadstone parcels, the parcel to be an- nexed would be surrounded on two sides (51.2% of the perimeter) by urban development (not including major roads such as South Higuera and Highway 101 as “urban development”). ATTACHMENT A Page 253 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 4 March 17, 2025 T ABLE 1 G ENERAL P LAN LAND USE AND Z ONING CHANGES Requested Action: Major Development Permit The project will include a Major Development Permit for the project elements, which will be submitted after the annexation, General Plan amendment and Zoning Ordinance amendment. Upon the completion of the initial elements of the environmental review to inform final project design, the Major Development Permit will be completed so that it can be approved concurrent with or immediately after the General Plan and Zoning amend- ments. No urban improvements are proposed for the Hayashi Property. North South Total Existing Total Parcel Area 9.93 13.25 23.18 Open Space/Riparian 3.09 5.03 8.12 Streets - - R-1 8.22 8.22 R-2 6.84 6.84 R-4 - Total Developable 6.84 8.22 15.06 Permitted Density Units 82.08 57.54 57.54 Proposed Total Parcel Area 9.93 13.25 23.18 Open Space/Riparian 3.09 5.03 8.12 Streets - 1.38 1.38 R-1 - R-2 - R-4 6.84 6.84 13.68 Net Site Area 6.84 6.84 13.68 Permitted Density Units 164.16 164.16 328.32 Per Parcel Size and Survey ATTACHMENT A Page 254 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 5 March 17, 2025 FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION AND V ICINITY ATTACHMENT A Page 255 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 6 March 17, 2025 FIGURE 2 HAYASHI PARCEL TO B E ANNEXED ATTACHMENT A Page 256 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 7 March 17, 2025 Project Data and Design The project plans in Figure 3 and Figure 4, show a mixture of stacked flat and townhome units ranging in size from 490 SF studios to 1,175 SF 3-bedroom units for Broadstone North, and 400 square foot studios to 1,250 square foot 2-bedroom units for Broadstone South. Both units have central amenities including meeting spaces, clubhouses, play courts, pools, and tot lots. The total density of the project is 337.4 density units. A density bonus is being applied to Broadstone North for a qualified senior housing development LOVR North will be a qualified senior housing project and will be seeking a 5.6% density bonus for a total density of 173.3 density units per acre versus to 164.16 density units per acre allowed by the proposed R-4 zoning. Table 2 shows the summary of the land uses and the development. As currently programmed and summarized in Table 2, LOVR North is a for-sale senior development, and LOVR South a mix of for-rent and for-sale market rate project. As a for-sale project, Broadstone South would have 165 dwelling units with 140 2BR/2B units, 15 1BR units, and 10 3BR/2B units. For the purposes of the environmental analysis, the greater number of units in the multifamily rental program should be used. A 0.44-acre ponding basin would be located to the south on Parcel APN: 076-081-009 (“Hayashi Property”) for storm drainage for Broadstone South, and to ensure no net fill. The Hayashi Property would also have 2.04 acres used for the LOVR Bypass and Bob Jones Trail extensions. Because the approval of the LOVR Bypass won’t be finally determined until final project approvals, an “ac- tionable alternative” site plan has been developed for Broadstone South. This site plan is illustrated in Figure 5 and deletes the 1.38-acre LOVR Bypass right of way, and increases the number of buildings and dwelling units. The “Broadstone South Alternative” has 240 dwelling units (197 density units) on 8.22 net acres of R-4 land. An alter- native is also being considered for Broadstone North that would remove the age restriction and include only “Building B” with parking around the perimeter. Under this option for Broadstone North, there would be 182 total dwelling units on 6.84 net R-4 acres. Each site would have transportation demand and management strategies to reduce necessary onsite parking, reduce vehicle trips, and reduce single occupant vehicle trips. These may include access to Bob Jones Trail connections to shopping and regional destinations, walking distance (2,500 ft) to general market and shopping, a transit stop at Higuera/LOVR (Routes 2A/2B), transit passes to residents, onsite recreation services, shared parking between LOVR North and LOVR South, bicycle provided for each room in a unit (either by common check out for rentals, or as part of sale of home), or onsite project transit. A parking requirement reduction will be requested for LOVR South based on these actions, and LOVR North will request a 0.5/parking space per unit requirement as part of its density bonus application (156 parking spaces will be provided for LOVR North, 0.75 spaces per unit). Table 2 represents the site areas based on property and title records and using the predominant riparian edge as the division line between the Open Space/Riparian zone and the current R-1 and R-2 designations. The zoning map’s boundaries do not follow a property line and the zone boundary has been interpreted to be the ri- parian edge, based on customary city practice, and guidance provided by Figure 3-2 of the zoning ordinance. Using the predominant riparian edge as the zone boundary there is 8.22 acres of net site area on the south property, compared to the 7.33 acres in the City’s GIS; and, the north property has 6.84 acres of net site area compared to the 6.8 acres contained in the City’s GIS. The total area of the south property is 13.25 acres compared to the 13.1 acres in the GIS; and, the total area of north property is 9.93 acres compared to the 9.5 acres stated in the GIS. The variations in site areas are NOT the result of modifying the riparian corridor in any way. ATTACHMENT A Page 257 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 8 March 17, 2025 T ABLE 2 L AND U SE AND DEVELOPMENT S UMMARY Project Phasing The project will be phased into three sequential phases to reflect expected market demand and logical extension of utilities, as described below. Table 3 summarizes the buildout according to each of these phases. Phase 1. Phase 1 will include the 48 units in the three Buildings A on Broadstone North along the south- ern and eastern perimeter. For Broadstone North, all of the LOVR frontage improvements would be completed along with the intersection improvements, relocation of the existing City sewer facilities, and installation of the main entry roads. For Broadstone South, the LOVR Bypass would be extended from LOVR to the project entrance, the community amenities would be constructed, along with 91 dwelling units. This phase would include the offer of connection for Los Verdes Park I for a secondary access. Phase 2. Phase 2 would include the 62 units in the first phase of the Building B of Broadstone North, com- mon areas and some common area amenities; and, the remaining 110 units for Broadstone South. Phase 2 would also include the extension of Bob Jones Trail and LOVR Bypass to South Higuera Road, and the installation of the traffic signal at LOVR Bypass/Los Osos Valley Road. This phase would include the offer of access to Los Verdes Park II for a secondary access. Phase 3. Phase 3 of the project would include the remaining 98 units for Broadstone North Building B. Total North South Total Parcel Area 23.18 9.93 13.25 Open Space/Riparian 8.12 3.09 5.03 Streets 2.76 - 1.38 Net Site Area 13.68 6.84 6.84 Permitted Density Units 328.32 164.16 164.16 Permitted Doors 398.72 197.03 201.69 Units 408 208 201 Studio 52 36 17 1BR 162 80 85 2BR 173 71 99 3BR 21 21 Density Units 337.42 173.30 163.60 Density Units/Unit 0.83 0.81 Density Units/Net Acre 24.67 25.34 23.92 Doors/Net Acre 29.82 30.41 29.39 FAR 5.7% 5.5% 6.0% Total Conditioned Area 34,205 16,250 17,956 Program ATTACHMENT A Page 258 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 9 March 17, 2025 TABLE 3 PROJECT PHASING Total Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total Parcel Area 23.18 9.93 13.25 Streets 3.43 0.88 2.55 Development Site Area 13.68 5.77 4.58 3.33 Units 408 180 127 101 Studio 52 21 10 21 1BR 162 76 50 36 2BR 173 78 59 36 3BR 21 5 8 8 Density Units 337.42 146.16 109.00 82.26 ATTACHMENT A Page 259 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 10 March 17, 2025 Figure 3 Broadstone North Site Plan ATTACHMENT A Page 260 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 11 March 17, 2025 FIGURE 4 BROADSTONE SOUTH S ITE PLAN ATTACHMENT A Page 261 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 12 March 17, 2025 FIGURE 5 BROADSTONE SOUTH ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN Buildings in floodway to be deleted ATTACHMENT A Page 262 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 13 March 17, 2025 Site Utilities and Services The project has ready access to sewer, water, storm drainage and roads. Existing sewer lines would be relocated. The principal public infrastructure issues related to the site are circulation and traffic. The extension of the LOVR Bypass between LOVR and South Higuera was studied during the LUCE, but no final conclusions were drawn other than to study it further because the potential traffic benefits did not appear to warrant the cost. There were also questions about the feasibility of the project given its location in the County, property ownership, agricultural use and open space easements. The Hayashi Property is now owned by Landstone Properties (same owner as the Project) and the County has indicated that the LOVR Bypass may be considered a permitted use un- der the open space easement which permits “vehicular access”. A conceptual plan for the LOVR Bypass has been developed and is shown in Figure 7 that provides for the turn movements, traffic volumes and turn queues esti- mated in the preliminary traffic study. A test fit of a roundabout has been performed at the Bypass/LOVR intersection and the conclusion has been made that a roundabout would significantly shorten the existing turn pocket serving the left turn on to north- bound US 101, and would not meet basic roundabout design standards. A roundabout at this location would be sandwiched between two signals at either end, each less than 1,000 feet away. The traffic study determined that this would be undesirable due to differing flow characteristics of roundabouts compared to signals. A roundabout is not recommended at this location due to the impact on the LOVR/US 101 Northbound Ramp intersection and proximity to nearby signals. Consequently, a traffic signal is being evaluated at the LOVR/Bypass intersection that would accommodate pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic. The traffic study concluded that the LOVR Bypass would eliminate the need for further improvements at LOVR/South Higuera and on South Higuera between Subur- ban and Buckley Road to accommodate current and projected traffic. As noted in the LOVR Bypass Feasibility Study prepared by the Wallace Group, construction of the LOVR Bypass would occur in a mapped floodplain and there would need to be 42,500 cubic yards of cut from 6.3 acres of grading on the west side of San Luis Creek to compensate for the elevated roadway and reduction in capacity on the east side of the San Luis Creek. After this modification, the graded area would function as a continuation of the floodway boundary that already occurs on west side of San Luis Creek. The graded area on the west side of San Luis Creek would remain as a functional agricultural area. Half of this cut on the west side would be used for 22,500 cubic yards of fill to construct the LOVR Bypass, and the balance would be applied to the remaining agricul- tural property east of the LOVR Bypass. The other major circulation element is the connection of Bob Jones Trail to Higuera from its current termi- nus at the signal at the northbound Hwy 101 ramp on Los Osos Valley Road. As currently planned in the Active Transportation Plan, there would be a “grade-separated” crossing from the north side of Los Osos Valley Road to the south side, and the Bob Jones Trail would be extended along and in the riparian setback for San Luis Creek, as described in the Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study (2013). The designation of this route pre- dated the LUCE and the LOVR Bypass consideration, as well as recent issues with conflicts between users of the Bob Jones Trail and homeless persons residing in the creek. Per staff’s direction, a location along the LVOR Bypass may be preferred for safety and efficiency. Water Existing Conditions: Potable water for the project will be supplied by the City of San Luis Obispo. There is an existing 18-inch ductile iron water line in Los Osos Valley Road that is continuous and runs the entire length of the LOVR north and south frontages. There is an existing 8-inch PVC water line within Los Verdes Drive which parallels the southeast LOVR North property line. There is an existing 8-inch PVC water line within Los Palos Drive which parallels the southeast LOVR South property line. Proposed Water Infrastructure. Based on typical residential water demand in San Luis Obispo, water demand for the 408 units is estimated to be 40,600 gallons per day, with peak month demand of 61,700 gallons per day. By comparison the water demand for the Creekside development described in the LUCE EIR is 40,400. The ATTACHMENT A Page 263 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 14 March 17, 2025 water system for the LOVR North development is proposed to be comprised of a private 8-inch water main that would connect to the existing 18-inch main in Los Osos Valley Road, follow the internal road alignment heading north and then head east to tie-into the existing public 8-inch main in Los Verdes Drive creating a loop. The water system for LOVR South is proposed to be comprised of a public 12-inch water main in the LOVR Bypass that would connect to the existing 18-inch main in Los Osos Valley Road, and follow the public ‘LOVR Bypass’ Road alignment to the south end of LOVR South. Private domestic water services for each development area would branch off the 12-inch public water main and utilize the City standards water service and meter. The public mains will also pro- vide fire suppression to the development areas with fire hydrants located at intersections and appropriate spacing. The 12” public main in the LOVR Bypass would be intertied to the public water main in Los Verdes II. The private fire water systems for the development areas will be protected at each connection point to the public system with a double detector check assembly. Based on the information obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo, a 12” recy- cled water line is assumed to extend through Los Osos Valley Road to the intersection at South Higuera Street. The City has determined that a recycled water line will not need to be extended to the project site. Water modeling has been done to determine the adequacy of this system and it was determined that there is adequate pressure, adequate residual pressure with required fire flow, and adequate fire flow for the planned occupancies. Wastewater Existing Conditions. Sanitary sewer for the LOVR and Hayashi development projects will be served by the City of San Luis Obispo. There are two existing 8-inch VCP sewer mains coming from the existing Los Verdes Park 1 development at the northeast corner of the LOVR North project. They tie-into an existing sewer manhole located in the middle of the northern third of the LOVR North project. An existing 10-inch VCP sewer main contin- ues southwest through the LOVR North project, crosses under Los Osos Valley Road and has a series of manholes along the way, with one existing manhole within the Los Osos Valley Road right-of-way. There is an existing 8-inch VCP sewer main coming from the Los Verdes Park 2 development at the southeast corner of the LOVR South pro- ject. It ties into an existing sewer manhole located in the middle of the southern third of the LOVR Sough project. The existing 10-inch VCP sewer main from Los Verdes Park 1 also ties into this existing sewer manhole. An existing 12-inch VCP sewer main continues northwest through the LOVR South project and under Highway 101, where it ties into an existing sewer lift station in front of the existing Motel 6 on Calle Joaquin. Proposed Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure. Normal dry day sewer flows from the project are pro- jected to be 33,200 gallons a day based on a flow of 45 gallons per day per person. The sanitary sewer system for the project is proposed to be comprised of private sewer laterals for each development area that tie-into either the existing 8-inch sewer main or the existing 10-inch sewer main, depending on proximity, slope and depth. The sanitary sewer system for the LOVR South development is proposed to be comprised of private sewer laterals for each development area that tie-into either the existing 10-inch sewer main or the existing 12-inch sewer main, de- pending on proximity, slope and depth. Public Participation and Neighborhood Consultation The project sites are bordered on the east by Los Verdes Park I (“LVP I”) on the north, and Los Verdes Park II (“LVP II”) on the south. Both of these neighborhoods and their homeowner’s associations have expressed con- cerns about development projects in their vicinity, primarily relating to ingress and egress from their neighbor- hoods and about noise impacts from development projects. Both LVP I and LVP II were developed in the mid- 1970’s and their development pre-dates the connection of Los Osos Valley Road to State Highway 101 (although that connection was planned at the time), as well as the development of the Los Osos Valley Road commercial cor- ridor, Avila Ranch, and Froom Ranch. Both of the Los Verdes developments were designed with one entrance and exit point to Los Osos Valley Road. This access point is within the operating area of the Los Osos Valley Road/South Higuera intersection and eastbound left turning vehicles often block the entrances to LVP I and LVP II, especially left-turn exits. Because of ATTACHMENT A Page 264 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 15 March 17, 2025 their close proximity to the LOVR/South Higuera intersection, any sort of signalization at this location has been de- termined to not be feasible. As part of the pre-application due diligence for the project, a total of six meetings were held with these groups to identify ways in which the project could address existing issues, and mitigate potential issues created by the project itself. The residents’ issues included access to the planned signalized intersection at LOVR and the LOVR Bypass, noise attenuation, viewshed preservation and screening, compliance with the City’s “Edge Condi- tions” between higher density and lower density projects, and cooperation on landscaping and design. The project team hosted two community meetings at the SLO Public Market, one for each neighborhood, onsite meetings with HOA representatives to review areas of concern, and two onsite follow-up meeting with residents at their respec- tive community meeting centers. In total, approximately 135 persons attended these six meetings, 75 from LVP I and 60 from LVP II. Each neighborhood was provided with a review of the Broadstone North and Broadstone South portions of the project (with special emphasis on the particular development adjacent to their neighborhood), as well as the design of the LOVR Bypass. During the meeting, participants were asked to provide comments on the project plans about areas of concern or opportunities. Issues and comments that were made from LVP I attendees included: ATTACHMENT A Page 265 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 16 March 17, 2025 LVP I Comments 1. Make “Bldg A” on LOVR North one story on the LVP I/LOVR North property line. 2. “Bldg A” on the east property line is too close. 3. Who will pay for upkeep and maintenance of the access gate? 4. In favor of access, Locate at LVP I intersection. 5. Review potential for traffic backing up at access gate. 6. Larger landscape buffer and more trees along east property line. 7. Relocate access to the northern corner near Bocce Ball/Tennis Courts. 8. Walking access between parks would be nice. 9. Generally, in favor of Bypass and traffic signal. Better than no signal. 10. Prefer solid soundwall along property line. 11. LVP I will soon be putting in new walls along the perimeter along road frontages. 12. Clarify how much traffic will be diverted with LOVR Bypass. 13. Can U-turns be made at new signal intersection (to avoid U-turns at LVP park entrances). 14. Supportive of LOVR Bypass. No explicit objections. 15. Why not build something like LVP I and LVP II? 16. Need to analyze turn movement detail before and after the proposed project, including the intersections at the proposed bypass signal and the LOVR entrances. 17. Concern that more dwelling units will make a bad situation worse. 18. Left turns and U turns at LVP entrance. Suggestion by one participant that a median across frontage with U turns at bypass signal and LOVR/Higuera would work. 19. Need clear description of the traffic operations and impacts under the “no bypass” option. 20. Validation of the number of trips diverted from Higuera and LOVR to the bypass. What is the net change in trips on LOVR and Higuera with project traffic. 21. Documentation of why a roundabout can’t work. 22. Photo sims and cross sections for views from LVP 1 to Broadstone North would be desirable. 23. When will there be more meetings and hearings on the project? 24. Feasibility of truck turning movements at Higuera/Buckley to make sure that large trucks get diverted to be bypass too. LVP II Comments Comments from the meeting with the LVP II neighborhood included: 1. Please include traffic signal and bypass in the project. 2. Want noise mitigation/sound wall along the LOVR Bypass. 3. No 3 story units. Please restrict housing to one or two stories. 4. I live on Los Palos Drive II. I am against 3 story buildings blocking my existing views. ATTACHMENT A Page 266 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 17 March 17, 2025 5. Restrict height to two stories (along Bypass). Step up to 3 stories. 6. Not enough water for these units. Far, far too many units. 7. Concern for location of existing school bus stop on LOVR. 8. Prefer that access gate w/no ped access or only “fob” access to LVP II from LOVR Bypass. 9. Concern for grade so that LIVP II does not flood. 10. Gate to LVP II must not be a swinging arm. 11. Concern for homeless camps. 12. Concern for light pollution and noise pollution from LOVR Bypass. 13. Encroachment. 14. Questions about overall Bob Jones Trail connectivity. 15. Support annexation to facilitate completion of the Bob Jones Trail and bypass. 16. How many parking spaces will the project have? 17. What are the traffic impacts of the project? Traffic access in and out of LVP II is already difficult. 18. Can’t the signal be placed at the LVP entrance? 19. Will the Prado Road overpass be constructed? Did CalTrans approve the design? 20. Project will result in flooding impacts to LVP II. 21. Would annexation result in the development of the “Hayashi” property? Why is annexation desirable? Project Response to Comments and Issues The comments from LVP I and LVP II residents and representatives were helpful in considering project de- sign features. Listed below are a restatement of the major issues, and the project’s response to those issues and concerns. “Building A” on Broadstone North; Privacy Issues. Several options were considered to comply with this request. The first was compliance with the City’s “Edge Conditions” requirements in Zoning Ordinance Section 17.70.050 which would require a stepped setback of 10 feet on the ground level and 16 feet on the upper level, plus elimination of the balconies or terraces on the second level, or single-story construction. The project will include one-story construction only and a minimum 10-foot setback. LOVR Access Options and Preferences. Access options were evaluated and are covered below in more detail. All access options were considered, but the northern access option on LVP I and the southern and northern access options for LVP II were eliminated because of conflicts with City Improvement Standards or exist- ing drainage infrastructure. Landscape Buffer and Trees Along Property Boundaries. Additional trees will be provided. Sub- ject to approval by LVP I and LVP II, trees will be added on their side of the property line to fill gaps that have de- veloped over time, or to establish trees where they haven’t existed. The hedge on LVP I will be retained to the greatest extent possible as it provides buffering that cannot be achieved with other methods. Soundwalls and Noise Mitigation. Traffic noise mitigation has been a concern of these neighbor- hoods. While the noise study concluded that the proposed buildings would block more noise than the LOVR By- pass traffic will create, there is still an interest in doing more. Recently, LVP II installed a six-foot vinyl barrier wall along the northern and western perimeter, and LVP I is in the process of installing a masonry wall. The project will keep the existing six-foot vinyl barrier wall and add trees to fill the current gaps. along the LVP II property line with a 6-foot decorative masonry wall. Although a new decorative masonry wall with a Sound Transmission Class ATTACHMENT A Page 267 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 18 March 17, 2025 (STC) value of 45 to 50, would have higher acoustical blocking properties that than the SimTek Ecostone vinyl wall product used by LVP II (which has an STC value of 28 according to the manufacturer), the main noise reduction fac- tor is height and proximity of the wall to the receiver or the noise source. Unless the receiver is in the "acoustic shadow" behind the wall, a new fence would not reduce perceived noise at the dwelling units in LVP II. The exist- ing vinyl fence would be retained in place or relocated consistent with the current property boundary. Project Density. There were a number of inquiries and requests about the proposed density and num- ber of units on the project. There were also questions about the number of floors. (See also the question above about “Bldg A” issues for LVP I.) The project is being designed to meet the housing needs as expressed in the City’s Housing Element, and a range of product types that are accessible to the community and workforce. The project is also required to support significant infrastructure improvements such as remedying drainage issues associated with Los Verdes, planning and construction of the Bob Jones Trail, relocation of major city sewer infrastructure, the LOVR Bypass and the traffic signal. Development at a density similar to Los Verdes would place the price range for the finished project at approximately $1.1 million to $1.5 million each. In order to address concerns related to height and bulk, the project is implementing additional landscaping, and augmented Edge Condition design fea- tures. The site line analysis prepared for the project indicates that the larger 3-story structures are at least 130 feet away from the nearest Los Verdes residence; and, with planned landscaping, walls and screening, that only the very top of the structures will be visible from and to the Los Verdes units. This means that balconies, terraces and windows facing east will not have direct views of and into the living or yard areas of Los Verdes residences. The City has determined that there is adequate potable water and sewer capacity to accommodate the project. Light and Glare. The project will comply with the City’s “Night Sky Preservation” requirements in Sec- tion 17.70.100 of the Zoning Ordinance. These regulations require, among other things that outdoor lighting shall be directed downward and away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, that no lighting on private property shall produce an illumination level greater than two maintained horizontal foot-candles at grade on any property within a residential zone except on the site of the light source, that the maximum light intensity on a resi- dential site shall not exceed a maintained value of 10 foot-candles, when measured at finished grade, and that di- rect sources of light such as building lights, yard lights, street lights and site lighting shall be shielded with full cut- off or recessed fixtures designed and installed so that no emitted light will break a horizontal plane passing through the lowest point of the fixture (be shielded from visibility on adjacent sites. With regard to vehicle head- lights, access points to the LOVR Bypass will be located so that they are not opposite oncoming or turning traffic that isn’t shielded by fencing or landscaping. LOVR Bypass Access Gates. Access between the project sites and the adjacent Los Verdes develop- ment will be through a key fob or access card that would only permit LVP residents to use it. These access points would be in conformance with Fire Department emergency access regulations. There is also limited space for queuing from Los Verdes and Los Palos Drives on LVP I and LVP II, respectively, and the design would need to ac- commodate those restrictions. These roadways are 25 feet wide with parking on one side and are essentially one- way perimeter roads. Traffic Impacts from the Project with and Without the Bypass. The proposed project includes construction of a “bypass” road connecting Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) north of Los Verdes Park No. 2 (LVP II) to the South Higuera/Buckley Road intersection. According to the traffic study prepared for the project traffic con- sultant, 3,400 vehicle trips per day that are currently on South Higuera and LOVR along the LVP II project frontages would be diverted to the bypass, a 20% reduction. Even with new project traffic and the greater number of units than the existing zoning on the Broadstone property, there would be a 3,150-vehicle trip reduction in the number of vehicles per day across the LVP frontage. By contrast, development under the existing zoning would increase traffic on LOVR across the LVP frontage by 500-750 vehicles per day because the bypass would not be constructed and no existing trips would be diverted. The traffic study also notes that the “…LOVR/South Higuera Street would operate unacceptably without the Bypass….” Further studies have shown that necessary improvements to ATTACHMENT A Page 268 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 19 March 17, 2025 LOVR/South Higuera (instead of the bypass) would negatively impact LVP I and LVP II properties, and would funnel more traffic across the LVP frontage rather than less. A thorough traffic study will be completed as part of the city’s review of the project. Flood Impacts Associated with Project. As result of comments from the City and residents, a com- prehensive flooding/HEC-RAS study was initiated that includes the Broadstone South, Broadstone North and Hayashi properties. The surface elevation of LVP II is approximately 105’ above mean sea level (msl), and the flood elevation on the project site ranges from 101’ to 102’, indicating the LVP II is well above any FEMA-determined flooding potential. Projects that involve grading and modifications to flood plains are not permitted by City and FEMA regulations from negatively impacting other properties, or which raise the level of flood waters. For any “fill” on the project site, there must be an equal amount of “cut” so that there is no net loss of floodway capacity, any increase in the flood water elevation, nor any increase of the velocity of flood waters. Further, the project will improve drainage issues that occur at the southwest corner of LVP II and the southeast corner of the project site by installing drainage lines and other improvements. Annexation of the Hayashi Property. The annexation of the Hayashi property is necessary because the Hayashi property is currently located in the County and the County won’t allow the LOVR Bypass or Bob Jones Trail Extension. They consider those “City” improvements that need to be designed and maintained by the City. And, although the property would be annexed to the City, it would not result in development of that property. Landstone (the current owner of the Broadstone South and Broadstone North properties) is the current owner of that property, and it is NOT proposing any development on it other than the Bypass and the Bob Jones Trail Bike Path. There is already a “No Development” Conservation Easement on that property that would still apply. The Hayashi property is also outside of the City’s current “Urban Reserve Line” and cannot be developed to urban uses. Annexation of the Hayashi property is desirable because it: 1) reduces the traffic in front of LVP I and LVP II by in- stallation of the Bypass which would divert through traffic around the LVP II development; 2) provides an accessi- ble signalized intersection for LVP II residents (at their option); 3) uses City standards including lower allowed traf- fic speeds; 4) ensure consistent compliance with FEMA regulations on the Broadstone project site and Hayashi properties; 5) provides for City Planning and Zoning; 6) provides for better flood proofing for roadways because of the use of City Improvement Standards; 7) provides for consistent and reliable road maintenance; 8) provides for City traffic calming standards and lower design speeds (25 mph vs 45 mph); and, 9) provides for more consistent representation by City elected officials for all properties adjacent to LVP II. Further, the Annexation/Project option preserves all options, including the ‘no bypass’ option. The “No Annexation” option means no Bypass, no traffic signal, elimination of the Bob Jones Trail extension onto Hayashi property (and connection to Octagon Barn trail- head), more traffic along Los Verdes’ LOVR frontage rather than less traffic, and more congestion at the LOVR/South Higuera intersection. LOVR Bypass Access Options Both LVP I and LVP II representatives and residents were consulted on the desirability of providing access from these developments to the LOVR Bypass and/or the signalized intersection at LOVR/LOVR Bypass. There was general support for this concept. LVP II representatives expressed a preference for a right turn exit only for access to the LOVR Bypass, with no left turns in or out and no right turns in. Based on these meetings, Figure 6 summa- rizes the access locations preferred by the LVP I and LVP II representatives. The design team is reviewing the feasibility of these requested locations and has come to the following preliminary conclusions: LVP I: 1-North Access. This access point was preferred by LVP I because there would be least amount of conflict with other LVP I onsite circulation. However, this location conflicts with drainage patterns and infra- structure (this is the discharge point for all of LVP I drainage). It also results in the most awkward circulation access and the maximum amount of onsite travel through Broadstone North to LVP I. Because of the drainage issues, this option was eliminated from consideration. ATTACHMENT A Page 269 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 20 March 17, 2025 LVPI: 2-Middle Access. This access option would be in the vicinity of LVP I Del Oro Court, north of the planter. Precise location depends on the gap between buildings. This location is determined to be feasible. LVPI: 3-South Access. This access option would be between Los Verdes Drive and Del Oro Court, north of the planter. Precise location depends on the gap between buildings. This location is determined to be feasible. LVPII: 1-North Access. As noted above, representatives from LVP II expressed a preference for exiting right turns only for LVP II access to the LOVR Bypass. This would provide access to the signalized intersection de- sired by residents but would not create light, glare or congestion associated with in and out movements. This op- tion was considered the better option by LVP II representatives because it would be opposite Contenta Court and there are no units that would directly face the opening, and eliminates potential light and glare issues. This loca- tion is approximately 200’ from the LOVR/LOVR Bypass intersection and is in the intersection “Functional Area” where driveway and street access is to be limited according to the City’s Improvement Standards. This location would not provide adequate access to the left most northbound left turn lane which would be most frequently used for access to the northbound ramp for Highway 101. This location was determined to be infeasible because of non-compliance with the City’s Improvement Standards. LVPII: 3-Middle Access. This access option would be opposite the inbound lanes of the Broadstone South main entrance. It was the least preferred by LVP II representative because of the extent of traffic and move- ments at the Broadstone South entrance. This would avoid headlights and glare from vehicles exiting Broadstone South into LVP II. This location is determined to be feasible. LVPII: 2-South Access. This access option would be north of the east-west portion of Los Palos Drive in the southern part of LVP II. Like LVPI-North discussed above, this corner of the project is the primary drainage lo- cation and access improvements located here would conflict with drainage infrastructure. This location also has limited sight lines to the south and there is not adequate stopping distance for north bound traffic. The “offer of access” location on the Broadstone South plan is considered the southernmost location for an access drive that meets sight distances. The location as indicated on Figure 6 is not considered to be feasible; however, the “offer of access location is considered feasible. ATTACHMENT A Page 270 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 21 March 17, 2025 FIGURE 6 LOS VERDES ACCESS O PTIONS WITH LVP RANKINGS ATTACHMENT A Page 271 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 22 March 17, 2025 FIGURE 7 LOVR BYPASS AND BOB JONES TRAIL CONCEPT PLAN ATTACHMENT A Page 272 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 23 March 17, 2025 Environmental Issues and Findings Aesthetics Site aesthetics are primarily comprised of the San Luis Creek Corridor views from inside the project site. The Project will implement creek setbacks in order to preserve the aesthetics. There is also limited vertical devel- opment along the creek frontage to allow for views of the creeks from the developed residential areas. A sight line analysis was conducted for view lines from LVP I to Broadstone North and from LVP II to Broadstone South. This analysis concluded that with compliance of Zoning Ordinance Edge Conditions, landscaping, and the addition of trees on the project site and in “gap” areas on the Los Verdes properties that there would be no adverse view im- pacts. Residents of the east side of the project would not have direct views of any residential yard areas, windows or other private areas from project windows, balconies or terraces. There are also no aesthetic impacts to the public traveling on SH101 since the site is 300 feet away from the highway, is screened by approximately 200 feet of dense vegetation between the Project sites and highway, and would comply with the City’s Edge Conditions requirements for multifamily projects located next to single family neighborhoods. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the view of the Project sites from the SH101 corridor. Figures 10-13 show views of the Project sites from various points inside the Los Verdes I and Los Verdes II developments. Figure 14 and Figure 15 show site cross sections that indicate view lines from and to the project and the adjacent existing residential units. Agricultural Resources Development of the Project site will convert 17.56 acres of prime on and offsite farmland. The 2014 LUCE EIR evaluated the impact of the conversion of 15.06 acres of onsite prime farmland and acknowledged that devel- opment in the Los Osos Valley Road Creekside Area is primarily undeveloped and designated Interim Open Space. Development of the LOVR Bypass and Bob Jones Trail on the Hayashi Property will convert an additional 2.50 acres of agricultural land on the Hayashi Property between the eastern right of way line of the road and the eastern ri- parian edge of San Luis Creek. The 7.7 acres of land east of the LOVR Bypass could conceivably remain in small scale agriculture. The land west of San Luis Creek would remain in its current state and configuration and con- tinue to be farmed. Total impact is estimated to be 17.56 acres compared to the 15.06 acres assumed in the LUCE. Project soils are identified as “Important Agricultural Soils” (that is, those soils in the county particularly worthy of conservation and protection) by the County. These soils include Cropley clay (0-2 percent slopes), Conception loam (2-5 percent slopes), and Salinas silty clay loam (0-2 percent slopes). In addition, Cropley Clay and Salinas silty clay loam are considered Prime Farmland and Conception loam is classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance. Soils within the Study Area are either currently under agricultural production, are located along the edge of agricultural fields, or are disturbed by urban development. Per the LUCE Policy 1.8.2, “…development is allowed on prime agri- cultural land if the development contributes to the protection of agricultural land in the urban reserve or greenbelt by one or more of the following methods, or an equally effective method: 1) acting as a receiver site for transfer of development credit from prime agricultural land of equal quantity; 2) securing for the City or for a suitable land conservation organization open space or agricultural easements or fee ownership with deed restrictions; or, 3) di- rectly funding the acquisition of fee ownership or open space easements by the City or a suitable land conservation organization.” The project will comply with the City’s ag mitigation policies by undertaking one of the methods described in LUCE Policy 1.8.2. ATTACHMENT A Page 273 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 24 March 17, 2025 FIGURE 8 VIEW OF S ITE FROM SH 101 AT LOVR SOUTH SOUTHERN LIMITS (SITE BEYOND TREE LINE ) FIGURE 9 VIEW OF S ITE FROM SH 101 FROM LOVR N ORTH NORTHERN LIMITS (SITE IS BEYOND TREE LINE ) ATTACHMENT A Page 274 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 25 March 17, 2025 FIGURE 10 PHOTOSIM : LOS V ERDES I TO LOVR NORTH FIGURE 11 PHOTOSIM : LOS V ERDES I TO LOVR NORTH ATTACHMENT A Page 275 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 26 March 17, 2025 FIGURE 12 PHOTOSIM : LOS V ERDES II TO LOVR SOUTH FIGURE 13 PHOTOSIM: L OS VERDES II TO LOVR SOUTH ATTACHMENT A Page 276 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 27 March 17, 2025 FIGURE 14 LOVR NORTH/LOS VERDES I C ROSS SECTION FIGURE 15 LOVR SOUTH/LOS VERDES II CROSS SECTION Air Quality Once the traffic study has been reviewed and completed, an air quality impact assessment will be pre- pared. Existing agricultural operations establish a baseline for existing conditions, as well as existing zoning. ATTACHMENT A Page 277 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 28 March 17, 2025 Biological Resources A biological resources assessment (“BRA”) was completed for Broadstone North (“LOVR North”), Broad- stone South (“LOVR South”), and the Hayashi Property by Terra-Verde Environmental Consulting. Based on a re- view of the range and habitat requirements for regionally occurring special-status species, it was determined that five special-status botanical species had the potential to occur within the survey area, including Cambria morning glory, Congdon’s tarplant, Monkey-flowered savory, Paniculate tarplant, Black-flowered figwort, and Coast live oak. Two coast live oak trees were observed in LOVR North, near the structure in the northwest corner. Most of the special-status plants occur in the riparian areas of San Luis Obispo Creek, and not in the ruderal and agricul- tural areas on site that are proposed for development. Nonetheless, Cambria morning-glory, Congdon’s tarplant, and paniculate tarplant are species that tolerate disturbance, the development portions of the site were surveyed for these species. No special-status botanical species were observed during the June 7 survey, which was timed to coincide with the typical blooming period for regionally occurring special-status plant species with suitable habitat on site. The range and habitat requirements for regionally occurring special-status wildlife species indicates that 14 species may occur on site or in surrounding areas, in addition to nesting birds and raptors. No special-status wildlife species were observed during the field surveys. However, of these species, the Southwestern pond turtle, California red-legged frog, Coast Range newt, steelhead, and two-striped garter snake have potential to occur in and around San Luis Obispo Creek and the wetland abutting the sites. Northern California legless lizard, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, white tailed kite, San Diego desert woodrat, and Least Bell’s vireo have potential to occur in and around the riparian areas. Abandoned structures on the LOVR North property may provide habitat for roosting bats. American badger may occur in riparian or ruderal areas on site. In addition, San Luis Obispo Creek is designated critical habitat for the south-central California coast steelhead DPS by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) (NOAA 2021). Further, suitable habitat for nest- ing birds is present within the riparian and ruderal areas as well as the building and ornamental plants on LOVR North. The Property and the Hayashi Property also have aquatic features including “Drainage 1” which is an ephemeral drainage that flows generally east to west across the LOVR North property. There is a culvert where the north-south access road crosses the drainage. The eastern portion of Drainage 1 has a well-defined bed and bank up to the culvert. West of the culvert the feature becomes less defined before it flows into the riparian habitat as- sociated with San Luis Obispo Creek. The extent of CDFW jurisdiction was mapped along both banks of Drainage 1. The survey also identified “Swale 1” which is an erosional feature that flows from a culvert outlet under an access road that runs along the northern bank of San Luis Obispo Creek in the southwestern corner of the Hayashi Prop- erty. Swale 1 has a defined bed and bank and flows southeast into San Luis Obispo Creek. The extent of CDFW ju- risdiction was mapped along both banks. On the east side of the Hayashi Property, there is a wetland feature that abuts the existing access road entrance off South Higuera Street. Wetland vegetation was observed during the sur- vey and a review of aerial imagery. San Luis Creek is recognized as a Waters of the US and Water of the State; however, development is set back from the creek channel by 100 to 250 feet and the survey concluded that there will be no direct impacts to San Luis Creek, or the sensitive species expected to occur there. Cultural Resources A Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted for the Project and the Hayashi Property. It concluded that while the proposed improvements are located within an area of moderate archaeological sensitivity, archival research, a Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands Search, previous surveys, and an intensive archae- ological field survey identified no archaeological resources. No further archaeological work is required or recom- mended within the acreage studied during this survey. Two structures on the Hayashi Property were evaluated, including an old segment of Old State Route 2 and the Stornetta Bridge. The Old State Route 2 was determined ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources due to a lack of historic integrity. The Stornetta Bridge was also evaluated and is considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. The LOVR Bypass and the Bob Jones Trail extensions are expected to cross and affect ATTACHMENT A Page 278 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 29 March 17, 2025 Old State Route 2, but will be 150 feet to 175 feet away from the Stornetta Bridge. No cultural resources impacts are expected. Energy Efficient use of energy is assured because of the application of the most recent version of the California Energy Code, the Uniform Building Code, and the City’s Climate Action Plan. The Property is also located in a “low- VMT” traffic analysis zone with 76% of average household VMT according to data from the California State Traffic Demand Model (CSTDM), and according to the Residential VMT Screening Map in the City’s Multimodal Transpor- tation Impact Study Guidelines. This indicates that energy consumption related to vehicle use will be substantially below local averages. The installation of the Bob Jones Trail extension would further encourage active transporta- tion modes. The LOVR Bypass would also shorten the travel distance for northwest bound vehicles on Higuera south of Buckley Road and on Buckley Road, by approximately 1,200 linear feet (0.23 miles), reducing annual VMT associated with these existing trips by 285,430 miles per year, and resulting in lower fuel and energy usage. The project proposes an “all-electric” fuel program. Geology and Soils Broadstone North, Broadstone South and the Hayashi Property were evaluated by GeoSolutions for con- straints related to local geology, surface and groundwater conditions, propensity for landslides or unstable soil conditions, faults and seismicity, flooding and severe erosion, liquefaction, and capability of the soils to support building structures and foundations. All of the subject sites were deemed suitable for construction of the pro- posed improvements, with special conditions necessary to address the potential of groundwater seepage, pres- ence of loose/soft surface soils, the presence of expansive material, influx of water from irrigation, leakage from the residence, or natural seepage could cause expansive soil problems. Special design conditions are warranted to address the potential for liquefaction, as well as addressing the influence of the flood prone areas and seepage from San Luis Creek. Global Climate Change/GHG The Project’s generation of Greenhouse gasses (GHG) will be quantified during the environmental review process. It will also comply with the City’s Climate Action Plan. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Soils Engineering Reports and Engineering Geological Investigations for the Broadstone North, Broad- stone South and the Hayashi properties did not reveal any hazards related to soil conditions, or the presence of hazardous materials. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment did not reveal any known or potential hazards. The traffic analysis did not reveal any hazards related to unsafe circulation improvements or roadway geometry. Finally, the properties are in Airport Land Use Plan Safety Zone 6, which permits development at the proposed in- tensity. Hydrology and Water Quality There are no known water quality issues on the project sites. The principal hydrological issue is the pres- ence of flooding potential on the Broadstone South property and the Hayashi Property. Base flood elevations for Broadstone North ranges from 110’ msl on the north to 104’ msl at the Los Osos Valley Road bridge. Base flood elevations for Broadstone South range from 104’ msl at the Los Osos Valley Road bridge on the north to 98.8 msl on the south. The Hayashi Property is in Zone A, and base flood elevations have not been officially established. As part of the project, a comprehensive HEC-RAS analysis will be prepared for the LOVR North, LOVR South and Hayashi properties. According to the City’s Drainage Design Manual, there is to be no significant net increase (no more than 0.2 feet) in up-stream or downstream floodwater surface elevations for the 100-year flood at General Plan build-out as a result of changes in floodplain configuration and building construction, or a change in stream velocities greater than 0.3 feet per second. In order to implement this, the Drainage Design Manual requires that there shall be no significant net decrease in floodplain storage volume as a result of a new development or rede- velopment projects, which is to be achieved by balancing all fill placed on the 100-year floodplain with cut taken ATTACHMENT A Page 279 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 30 March 17, 2025 from other portions of the floodplain within the project area of the application, or with cut exported off site. Flood floodplain storage capacity is not to be reduced at any stage of a flood (2, 10, 50, or 100-year event). It is notewor- thy that there is a significant inconsistency between existing grade/topography, the flood level/floodway datum, and the mapped flood areas. This analysis will be further developed as part of the project. Broadstone South will require 3’-5’ feet of fill in the lower 2.5 acres of the site, with compensating adjust- ments in grade achieved by construction of the ponding basin on the Hayashi Property south of Broadstone South, and a combination of onsite storm drainage basins and chambers. Total cut and fill for Broadstone South is esti- mated to be approximately 15,000 cubic yards each. The Project will implement Post Construction Requirements as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Development of the Bob Jones Trail and the LOVR By- pass on the Hayashi Property will require flood proofing to either the City or County standard. In order to accommodate construction of the LOVR Bypass, and the potential impact on flood flows, the project will widen the floodway on the west side of San Luis Creek to create 42,500 cubic yards (26.35 acre-feet) of floodway/drainage area volume to compensate for the capacity reduction on the east side of the San Luis Creek. Sheets EX-2 and EX-9 show the proposed grading profiles. Land Use The land uses proposed are consistent with the 2014 LUCE and the most recently adopted version of the Housing Element, the latter of which calls for the site to be used for “higher density residential uses”. Develop- ment adjacent to the Los Verdes projects may also have potential conflicts; however, the location of the LOVR By- pass will mitigate any conflicts between multi-story construction on the project sites existing development. Broad- stone North Building A next to LVP I will be a one-story structure for compatibility with Los Verdes Park I. There is a potential conflict between the Bob Jones Trail extension and the LOVR Bypass on the Hayashi Property that is cov- ered by an Open Space Easement (per Parcel Map C0-79-218 and County Resolution 81-485). At the request of the applicant, the County of San Luis Obispo has determined the proposed facilities are consistent with “vehicular ac- cess” provided for in the easement document. There is also a potential conflict with the agricultural preservation and open space goals of the City and County through the conversion of open space and productive agricultural lands; however, the displaced 21 acres of lands will be replaced with an equal amount of land elsewhere in the City’s Urban Reserve Area per LUCE Policy 1.18, or in conjunction with a City, County or Land Conservancy conser- vation project. There is also a potential conflict with LVP II. Currently, LVP II has landscaping, walls and fences that are 7 feet to 13 feet west of the common property line between LVP II and Broadstone South. If the common property line is used as the fence/wall location, the vinyl wall would be relocated to a point five feet west of Los Palos Drive. The applicant and LVP II representatives are working on a solution. Noise A noise study was completed for the Project and it determined that the principal sources of existing and future noise are considered to be Los Osos Valley Road, State Highway 101, and the LOVR Bypass roadways. Under existing conditions, and without the LOVR Bypass, maximum exterior noise levels due to State Highway 101 on Broadstone North and Broadstone South are not expected to exceed 61 dBA and normal/typical construction prac- tices and designs will be sufficient in maintaining the interior noise levels of habitable spaces in the residential buildings. The outdoor activity areas for these areas are also expected to be below the Noise Element limit of 60 dBA. The construction of the LOVR Bypass will shift 3,500 current vehicle trips from portions of South Higuera and Los Osos Valley Road to the LOVR Bypass, and the sound level contours with the additional of the LOVR Bypass in place were considered. According to the noise study, the LOVR Bypass will not have an impact on units in Los Verdes Park II. Los Verdes Park II noise levels will be lower by 6 dB with the project and with the LOVR Bypass be- cause of attenuation of highway sound by the project structures. The actual noise impact will likely be less be- cause the design standard for the LOVR Bypass is a Residential Collector, with a maximum design speed of 25 mph. ATTACHMENT A Page 280 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 31 March 17, 2025 The assumption of a 35 mph design speed results in predicted sound levels that are approximately 2 dB higher than with the proposed design speed and anticipated traffic volumes and provides a worst-case scenario for noise modelling purposes. There is not projected to have any adverse affect of the project on noise levels in Los Verdes Park and Los Verdes Unit I. Population and Housing The proposed multifamily housing is recommended in Policy 6.13 of the Housing Element. The City of San Luis Obispo moderates local population growth through a growth management system to ensure that population increases over the term of the Land Use and Circulation Element (2014-2035). The city has set a population plan- ning limit to 2035 of 57,200, and city utilities and service capacities are benchmarked to that buildout population. Building permits are also moderated to ensure that the population limits in the LUCE are not exceeded, using a population per household statistic to keep population, housing and population levels in check. Since 1990, the average population per household has shown a regular decline, going from 2.26 persons per household (PPH) in 1990 to 2.01 persons per household in 2023. While that 10% reduction on average persons per household does not appear to be dramatic in itself, it reflects a substantial decline in the number of persons per new housing unit, reflecting the addition of 5,370 housing units and 6,272 in total population over that time period. Since the adoption of the LUCE in 2014, more housing units have been built than the resulting marginal increase in the number of new persons, and the marginal persons per household over that period has been 0.80, as shown in Table 4, below. Various public service factors validate this trend with trip generation, water demand and dry day sewer flows all below projected levels. There are several factors considered at play, including a greater number of retirees and “empty nester” household, smaller unit sizes, the addition of student housing at CalPoly, the formation of additional local households from the existing population (existing family members mov- ing out to form their own households), and other factors. T ABLE 4 H OUSING AND POPULATION TRENDS (1990 -2023) While there are annual variations in the marginal increase in population per household, the most pru- dent method of projecting Project and LUCE buildout is using a marginal PPH of 1.81 new persons per additional multifamily household, and 2.51 PPH per additional multifamily households. These were recently determined to be the averages for San Luis Obispo for all new and existing housing. While using the 0.80s PPH post-LUCE rate would provide a statistically valid metric that may be more representative of current housing trends, demographic changes in the community, and housing preferences, the communitywide average provides a more conservative estimate, even though using this average has not proven to be a good predicter of population resulting from new housing projects. Using the communitywide averages, the growth in housing units at the maximum one percent per year would result in a buildout population of 51,600 persons by 2035, 5,600 less than the maximum level shown in the Land Use Policy 1.11.2. Based on the communitywide averages, with some adjustment for unit size and tenure (senior vs non- senior units), the proposed project is estimated to increase local population by 738 persons, compared to the 364 persons estimated in the LUCE EIR. This increase of 374 persons can easily be accommodated given that popula- tion is 1,859 persons fewer than the level projected in the General Plan for the same growth rate. 1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2021 2022 2023 1990-2023 2015-2023 Population 40,478 42,317 43,937 44,854 44,609 46,206 46,318 46,750 6,272 1,896 Housing Units 17,877 19,308 20,554 20,887 21,641 22,090 22,676 23,247 5,370 2,360 Average PPH 2.26 2.19 2.14 2.15 2.06 2.09 2.04 2.01 New HH Pop/Unit 1.29 1.30 0.62 (0.32) 3.56 0.19 0.76 1.17 0.80 ATTACHMENT A Page 281 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 32 March 17, 2025 Public Services The project is served by City public services. Police services are dispatched from the central police station, and the nearest fire station is located on Los Osos Valley Road at Madonna Road. According to the City’s Fire Mas- ter Plan Map Atlas, Maps 3, 4 and 5, the project site is within a 4-minute travel time/1.5-mile ISO distance from the first responding fire station, and within 8 minutes from the second unit, indicating adequate coverage. The Avila Ranch project is implementing an interim fire station as part of its development that will also serve the project. No additional police or fire facilities are needed to support the project. The annexing of the Hayashi property will not result in additional public service demands beyond road and some riparian corridor maintenance. The Hayashi site is not within the City’s URL and urban land uses are not proposed for any of that project site. There will be no public safety, public services or utility demands associated with an increase in population because the site is uninhabited and has no residential, commercial or industrial land uses planned for it. In terms of maintenance costs, the City would be responsible for maintenance of the LOVR Bypass and the Bob Jones Trail on the Hayashi property once completed, as well as those areas that are currently within the City. There will be 2,600 LF of the bypass and bike path to maintain equal to 6.25 lineal feet (LF) per residential unit in Broadstone. By comparison, Avila Ranch has 16 LF per unit, Serra Meadows has 44 LF per unit, and Froom Ranch has 6.5 LF per unit. The project with the bypass would result in fewer public road miles to maintain per unit than all recently approved projects. The number of city road miles would increase by 0.36% by adding the bypass. The cost to maintain the LOVR Bypass is estimated at $0.10/SF per year and the cost to maintain the bike path is $0.50/SF per year. Total road maintenance costs are approximately $25,000 per year. Other costs may total up to an additional $100,000 per year. This will increase the $18 million Public Works budget by 0.14%. All of these costs would be covered by a Community Facilities District paid for by the project. Recreation The project is not located within the service area of a neighborhood or community park as shown on the City Recreation and Parks Element of the General Plan. Each component of the development will provide an 0.5- acre area for onsite recreational facilities to serve the residents including a community building or spaces, outdoor court games, pools, tot lots, and meeting spaces. The project will contribute to the development of recreation and park facilities through the payment of parks fees per the City’s Development Impact Fee schedule. Traffic and VMT VMT. The Property is located in a “low-VMT” traffic analysis zone according to data from the California State Traffic Demand Model (CSTDM), and according to the Residential VMT Screening Map in the City’s Multi- modal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. As a residential project, VMT compliance is measured by the num- ber of vehicle miles travelled per person compared to the Countywide average. According to the City’s Transporta- tion Impact Study Guidelines, daily project per capita VMT should be 14.25, 15 percent below baseline Regional (County) average Residential VMT per capita. According to the CSTDM data, per capita VMT in CSTDM traffic anal- ysis zone 3312 where the project is located has a daily per capita VMT of 8.8. The LOVR Bypass will shorten the travel distance for northwest bound vehicles on Higuera south of Buckley Road and on Buckley Road, by approxi- mately 1,200 linear feet (0.23 miles), reducing annual VMT by 285,430 miles. Net VMT/capita from the project is estimated to be 7.43, approximately half of the threshold established by the City. The project may result in much lower total VMT if regional VMT effects are considered that are associated with improving the balance of housing and jobs in the community. Traffic Operations Analysis. While traffic operations analysis is no longer a CEQA issue, the project site is located in an area requiring special transportation analysis to assess the feasibility and type of intersection control at the LOVR Bypass/Los Osos Valley Road, the feasibility and affect of the LOVR Bypass on the local circula- tion system, and the feasibility and affect of the extension of the Bob Jones Trail from Los Osos Valley Road to South Higuera Street. ATTACHMENT A Page 282 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 33 March 17, 2025 The extension of the LOVR Bypass between LOVR and Higuera was studied during the LUCE, but no final conclusions were drawn other than to study it further when the “Creekside” projects were proposed. There were also questions about the feasibility of the project given its location in the County, property ownership, agricultural use and open space easements. A conceptual plan has been developed and is shown in Figure 6 that provides for the turn movements, traffic volumes and turn queues estimated in the traffic study. The traffic study analyzed the LOVR/US 101 NB Ramp intersection, the LOVR/LOVR Bypass/Project Access (future intersection), the LOVR/South Higuera Street intersection, and the LOVR Bypass/Buckley Road/South Hi- guera Street intersection for current operations, buildout operations without the project, the project without the LOVR Bypass, and the project with the LOVR Bypass. The traffic analysis concluded that LOVR Bypass would divert approximately 3,500 non-project trips each day from South Higuera between Buckley and Los Osos Valley Road and between South Higuera and the LOVR Bypass/Los Osos Valley Road intersection. The LOVR Bypass would therefore significantly reduce eastbound right-turning trips on Los Osos Valley Road to South Higuera, and signifi- cantly reduce northbound left-turning trips on South Higuera to Los Osos Valley Road. Both maneuvers were con- sidered significant constraints to the intersection when it was evaluated in the LUCE. The traffic study concluded that without the project and the associated LOVR Bypass, the LOVR/South Hi- guera Street intersection would continue to operate unacceptably with an LOS E in the PM Peak Hour. Construc- tion of the LOVR Bypass improves intersection operations to LOS D at buildout, without any other modifications to the intersection. This is the same conclusion that was drawn in the June 13, 2014 LUCE Technical Memorandum (Page N-6) that implementation of the LOVR Bypass avoided the northbound left movement failures anticipated at the Los Osos Valley Road/Higuera intersection. Other LUCE technical analysis also concluded that the LOVR By- pass would reduce delays for residents exiting Los Verdes and a roadway in this area would be needed to provide access to development along this corridor. The final adopted Circulation and LUCE did not include the LOVR By- pass, but did include widening of South Higuera from Madonna to the southern City limits (including the Los Osos Valley Road/Higuera intersection) to four lanes. Construction of the LOVR Bypass would eliminate that need south of Los Osos Valley Road, and eliminate the need for the lengthening of the northbound left and eastbound right turn pockets. Due to the volume of traffic on Los Osos Valley Road and the approaching traffic on the LOVR Bypass, the Bypass/LOVR intersection would need to be controlled in some manner. The traffic study makes recommendations on turn pocket lengths for the LOVR/Bypass, and the Bypass/Higuera intersections that have been integrated into the project at signalized intersections. The LOVR Bypass/Higuera intersection would require some modification to the south leg to accommodate lengthening of the northbound left turn pocket. The LOVR Bypass degrades inter- section operations to LOS D during the PM peak hour due to an additional signal phase associated with the new west leg of the intersection. However, the construction of the LOVR Bypass decreases the southbound left turn queue that would otherwise extend into the Octagon Barn left turn lane. The new intersection at the LOVR Bypass and Los Osos Valley Road would be within 575 feet of the north- bound ramp intersection on Los Osos Valley Road. The westbound left turn pocket is currently approximately 400 feet. This is not ideal spacing so there was an analysis made of any conflicts that may occur to freeway ramp oper- ations. The traffic concluded that because the eastbound left turning movements into Broadstone North only min- imal queue, and the buildout queue for the westbound left turn to the northbound 101 ramps was less than 200 feet, there would be no operational conflict between the adjacent intersections. It was noted that a roundabout at this location would provide a greater conflict with the 101 northbound ramp because of roundabout approach improvements. As required by City policy, a roundabout was also considered at the LOVR Bypass/LOVR intersection. A roundabout alternative was also considered as part of this constraints analysis. The preliminary layout of the roundabout included the following design parameters a two-lane roundabout to match approach and departure lane configurations with an inscribed circle diameter of 180’ to align with recommendations from the current guid- ance (NCHRP 1043), and a multiuse 10’ path width and 5’ buffer from the path to the inscribed circle. It should be ATTACHMENT A Page 283 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 34 March 17, 2025 noted that detailed design performance metric checks such as truck turns, overlaps, and fastest paths were not performed for the feasibility assessment of this preliminary layout. The intersection footprint for a double lane roundabout would be significantly larger than that of the sig- nalized intersection at this location. A key criterion was to avoid property impacts to the Los Verdes Park proper- ties. Applying the necessary design features for a two-lane roundabout with consideration of multi-modal needs (particularly important near the Bob Jones Trail), the roundabout intersection will not meet either the advisory or the mandatory intersection distance standards required by the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM). The dis- tance from the US 101 northbound ramp curb return to the inscribed circle of the roundabout is reduced to 265’ and would require both an advisory standard (District level) and mandatory standard (HQ level) approval from Cal- trans. The roundabout intersection treatment would also require significantly more reconstruction work along LOVR, triggering more traffic impacts during construction, and require more right of way acquisition. Additional challenges would include staging construction and traffic handling on a very busy arterial road. Similar to a signal- ized LOVR Bypass intersection, the roundabout would have to be analyzed from a traffic operations standpoint to verify the feasibility. A review of the roundabout at this location indicates that this type of intersection treatment at this location to be problematic because the LOVR WB Left turn lane onto NB 101 would be shortened to 125’ (traffic report shows maximum queue of 167’). LOVR traffic speed surveys performed indicate that during those surveys, speeds are just under the requirements to apply a high-speed entry treatment to the roundabout ap- proach from the west. However, no safety factor has been applied and actual speeds may end up triggering high speed entry treatments that could necessitate widening of the roadway over the Creek culverts. It was also deter- mined that LOVR WB through movement is shown at 198’ in future conditions which would have vehicles close to backing up into the roundabout which would lock up the roundabout. Finally, the footprint of the roundabout is such that it would significantly reduce the developable area for Brookstone Village North and South to the point the project that would not be feasible and would not achieve the City’s Housing Element objective of increasing density on this site. Bob Jones Trail. The other major circulation element is the connection of Bob Jones Trail to Higuera from its current terminus at the signal at the northbound Hwy 101 ramp on Los Osos Valley Road. As currently planned in the Active Transportation Plan, there would be a “grade-separated” crossing from the north side of Los Osos Valley Road to the south side, and the Bob Jones Trail would be extended along and in the riparian setback for San Luis Creek, as described in the Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study (2013). The designation of this route pre-dated the LUCE and the LOVR Bypass consideration, as well as recent issues with conflicts be- tween users of the Bob Jones Trail and homeless persons residing in the creek. Per staff’s direction, a location along the LOVR Bypass was evaluated and is recommended as part of the project. The location of the Bob Jones Trail along the LOVR Bypass would result in directing Bob Jones Trail traffic through the LOVR Bypass/Los Osos Val- ley Road intersection, eliminating the need for the grade-separated crossing proposed in the Active Transportation Plan and/or eliminating the need for a separate ped-bike phase at the 101 northbound ramp/Los Osos Valley Road intersection. Figure 6 shows the proposed location of the Bob Jones Trail as proposed by the project. Fiscal and Economic Issues Development of properties results in public services demands. The annexation of the Hayashi property will not generate any property taxes as provided in the City’s tax sharing agreement with the other tax entities. According to the fiscal impact analysis used for the LUCE and similar recent projects, the overall development por- tions of the project, including the LOVR North and LOVR South will generate a General Fund surplus of $1.3 million over 30 years without the bypass/bike path expenses. Total annual service costs for the roadway, bike path, traffic signal and open space (current inside the city and the annexed area) will total $128,600 per year that can be par- tially funded with the $43,500 annual GF surplus that the project creates. In order to address this, the project pro- poses a Community Facilities District (CFD) to finance the public service costs associated with the annexation of the Hayashi property. A CFD tax level of $225-$325 per year per unit would be required. The same CFD could be used ATTACHMENT A Page 284 of 464 __________________________ Broadstone Project Summary and Description Page 35 March 17, 2025 to finance the developer’s share of the LOVR Bypass that is not funded by the City General Fund or the City TIF pro- gram. The project With a CFD and the GF surplus results in a net gain for the GF over 30 years of $4.93 million. The estimated total CFD tax on the LOVR North and LOVR South properties will be 0.171% at buildout which would result in a total property tax burden of 1.28%, less than the City 1.5% maximum. At the request of the City, the fiscal issues associated with the impact on the General Fund and the City TIF were considered. As stated in the information previously provided to the City, the improvements will be phased so that the City GF, TIF and developer obligations would occur over the next ten years and over at least three 2-year budget cycles. The maximum General Fund obligation in any one budget cycle would be approxi- mately $500,000 in the 2027-2029 two-year budget. The TIF obligations can be fully funded out of Citywide TIF funds from the LOVR North portion of the project, the first phase of the project. All of the obligations of the Citywide TIF program for the bypass can be funded from the project’s TIF revenues, with more the $2.5 million left over for other city projects. The annexation, and the resulting implementation of the LOVR Bypass and the revised Bob Jones Trail would result in savings for the TIF and the General Fund, and provide resolution of the projected multimodal level of service deficiencies at LOVR/Higuera. Under the current TIF program the improvements at LOVR/Higuera are estimated to be $3.1 million (even at this funding level, the intersection will eventually fail). That is based on cur- rent day costs based on inflation of the 2019 improvement cost estimates by 53% which is percentage that the City has increased TIF fees since 2019 to cover cost increases. The General Fund’s share of this improvement is $1.7 million, and the TIF’s share of this is improvement is $1.4 million. The revised General Fund and TIF amounts are $215,700 and $647,200, respectively. The General Fund’s savings are $1.5 million, and the TIF savings are $749,800 for a total savings of $2.24 million. The proposal is to use $841,800 of the General Fund’s $1.5 million savings, and $989,099 in TIF funds for the Bypass. ATTACHMENT A Page 285 of 464 Page 286 of 464 BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 T1TITLE SHEET BROADSTONE VILLAGE PERSPECTIVE VIEW - Main Building Entry for LOVR North L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R D HW Y 1 0 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THIS PROJECT CONSISTS OF TWO PARCELS: NORTH AND SOUTH. THE NORTH SITE AREA IS 9.33 ACRES WITH TWO SEPARATE ZONING CAT- EGORIES AND IS LOCATED TO THE EAST OF US HIGHWAY 101. THE 2.50-ACRE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE IS ZONED CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE AND INCORPORATES A PORTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBIS- PO CREEK RIPARIAN AREA. THE 6.83-ACRE REMAINDER OF THE SITE IS ZONED (R-2-SF) MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL FOCUS AREA. THE SPECIAL FOCUS AREA DESIGNATION IS INCLUDED IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN AND PROVIDES GUIDANCE ABOUT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO ADDRESS THE KEY ISSUES OF CREEK PROTECTION, SITE ACCESS, FLOOD CONTROL, AND NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION.THE SOUTH SITE IS 12.94 ACRES WITH TWO SEPARATE ZON- ING CATEGORIES AND IS LOCATED TO THE EAST OF US HIGHWAY 101. THE 5.61-ACRE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE IS ZONED CONSERVA- TION OPEN SPACE AND INCORPORATES A PORTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK RIPARIAN AREA. THE 7.33-ACRE REMAINDER OF THE SITE IS ZONED (R-1-SF) LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL FOCUS AREA. THE SPECIAL FOCUS AREA DESIGNATION IS INCLUDED IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN AND PROVIDES GUIDANCE ABOUT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO ADDRESS THE KEY ISSUES OF CREEK PROTECTION, SITE ACCESS, FLOOD CONTROL, AND NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THE 6.84-ACRE OF THE NORTH PARCEL, CURRENTLY ZONED R-2 WITH A SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT. CONSISTENT WITH HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM 6.13, THE PROJECT SITE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS AN OPPORTUNITY SITE FOR RE- ZONING TO PROVIDE POTENTIAL FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCREASED RESIDENTIAL UNITS. TO MEET THIS GOAL FOR MAXIMIZING HOUSING PRODUCTION, THE PROJECT APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST TO REZONE THE SITE FROM R-2 TO R-4 ALONG WITH A 20% DENSITY BONUS. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THE 6.84-ACRE OF THE SOUTH PARCEL, CURRENTLY ZONED R-1 WITH A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT. CONSISTENT WITH HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM 6.13, THE PROJECT SITE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS AN OPPORTUNITY SITE FOR REZONING TO PROVIDE POTENTIAL FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCREASED RESIDENTIAL UNITS. TO MEET THIS GOAL FOR MAXIMIZING HOUSING PRODUCTION, THE PROJECT APPLICATION INCLUDES A RE- QUEST TO REZONE THE SITE FROM R-1 TO R-4 ALONG WITH A 20% DEN- SITY BONUS. THE NORTH PROJECT INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 208 SENIOR HOUSING UNITS WITH A VARIETY OF UNIT TYPES AND SIZES INCLUDING STUDIOS, ONE-BEDROOM UNITS, TWO-BEDROOM UNITS, AND THREE-BEDROOM UNITS. THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT BUILDING TYPES PROPOSED. A TOTAL OF FIVE STRUCTURES IN THE PROJECT RANGING FROM 1 TO 3 STORIES. THE SOUTH PROJECT INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 201 MULTI-FAMILY HOUS- ING UNITS WITH A VARIETY OF UNIT TYPES AND SIZES INCLUDING STU- DIOS, ONE-BEDROOM UNITS AND TWO-BEDROOM UNITS, THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT BUILDING TYPES PROPOSED. A TOTAL OF THIRTEEN RESIDEITNAL STRUCTURES IN THE PROJECT THAT ARE ALL TO 3-STORIES. SHEET INDEX T1 TITLE SHEET T2 EXISTING CONDITIONS - NORTH T3 EXISTING CONDITIONS - SOUTH A1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - NORTH A2 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - SOUTH A3 BUILDING B - ENTRY DROP OFF AND LOBBY A4 BUILDING B - EAST ENTRY TO COURTYARD A5 BUILDING B- ELEVATIONS C1 GRADING AND DRAINING PLAN - NORTH C2 GRADING AND DRAINING PLAN - SOUTH C3 SITE IMPROVEMENTS - NORTH C4 SITE IMPROVEMENTS - SOUTH C5 UTILITY PLAN - NORTH C6 UTILITY PLAN - SOUTH C7 STORM WATER AMANGEMENT PLAN - NORTH C8 STORM WATER AMANGEMENT PLAN - SOUTH C9 STREET SECTIONS C10 AERIAL EXHIBIT - SOUTH C11 AERIAL EXHIBIT - SOUTH PROJECT STATISTICS LOVR SOUTH CURRENT ZONING R-1-SF & C/OS-10 PROPOSED ZONING:R-4 TOTAL PARCEL SIZE: LOVR NORTH R-2-SF & C/OS-20 R-4 9.33 ACRES (R-2 = 6.8 ACRES & C/OS = 2.50 ACRES) 12.94 ACRE 35FT 1(7/27$5($ 292,270 SF LOT COVERAGE:178,509 SF ) MAX. ALLOWED HEIGHT:35 FT. MAX. PROPOSED HEIGHT: BUILDING A: 18 FT.*BUILDING C: 37 FT. *BUILDING B: 46 FT.*BUILDING D: 37 FT. BUILDING F: 27 FT.*BUILDING E: 37 FT. * HABITABLE SPACE WILL BE BELOW 35’; PER 17.70.080 C. - COMPONENTS OF SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS, ELE- VATOR EQUIPMENT, AND SCREENING FOR MECHAN- ICAL EQUIPMENT CAN EXTEND UP TO 10’ ABOVE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. YARD SETBACKS REQ’D PROPOSED REQ’D PROPOSED FRONT 10 FT 10 FT 10 FT 10 FT SIDE 5 FT 15 FT 5 FT 15 FT REAR 10 FT 10 FT 10 FT 10 FT CONSTRUCTION TYPE:VB & VA VB & VA VICINITY MAP PARKING (NORTH) AUTO PARKING CALCULATION SPACE COUNT PARKING REQUIRED: RESIDENTIAL 0.5 SPACE PER UNIT TYPE 104 PARKING PROVIDED GARAGES 90 SURFACE 66 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 156 PARKING (SOUTH) AUTO PARKING CALCULATION SPACE COUNT PARKING REQUIRED: STUDIO17 UNIT X SPACE PER UNIT 1 148.5 BED85 UNIT X SPACE PER UNIT BED99 UNIT X 1.5 SPACE PER UNIT GUEST201 UNIT / 5 UNIT PER SPACE 40.2 TOTAL REQUIRED 2 PARKING PROVIDED GARAGES 173 SURFACE 81 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 254 REQUESTING % PARKING REDUCTION PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER:LOVR PROPERTIES, TIC P.O. BOX 11358 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93389 CONTACT: MATTHEW WADE PHONE: (661) 706-8109 EMAIL: MWADE@LANDSTONECOMPANIES.COM PLANNER:RRM DESIGN GROUP 3765 S. HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 CONTACT: PAM RICCI PHONE: (805)-543-1794 EMAIL: PARICCI@RRMDESIGN.COM ARCHITECT:RRM DESIGN GROUP 3765 S. HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 CONTACT: DARIN CABRAL PHONE: (805)-543-1794 EMAIL: DJCABRAL@RRMDESIGN.COM LANDSCAPE:RRM DESIGN GROUP 3765 S. HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 CONTACT: ANNA SCHMITZ PHONE: (805)-543-1794 EMAIL: AKSCHMITZ@RRMDESIGN.COM CIVIL:RRM DESIGN GROUP 3765 S. HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 102 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 CONTACT: TIM WALTERS PHONE: (805)-543-1794 EMAIL: TJWALTERS@RRMDESIGN.COM PROJECT ADDRESS:12500 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD APN:053-141-013 & 053-161-020 BUILDING UNITS (NORTH) BUILDING TYPE STUDIO 1-BED 2-BED 3-BED BUILDING A 12 6 BUILDING B 36 60 57 21 BUILDING F 8 8 TOTAL= 36 80 71 21 BUILDING UNITS (SOUTH) BUILDING TYPE STUDIO 1-BED 2-BED BUILDING C 6 30 42 BUILDING D 7 35 49 BUILDING E 4 20 8 TOTAL= 17 85 99 UNIT AREAS (NORTH) UNIT TYPE UNIT COUNT AVG. AREA STUDIO 36 490 SF 1-BED 80 565 SF 2-BED 71 950 SF 3-BED 21 1175 SF UNIT AREAS (SOUTH) UNIT TYPE UNIT COUNT AVG. AREA STUDIO 17 400 SF 1-BED 85 750 SF 2-BED 99 1010 SF DENSITY & UNIT MIX (NORTH) 164.16 DU DENSITY: ALLOWED:6.84 AC X 24 PROPOSED DENSITY BONUS: 164.16 DU X %1 DU PROPOSED DENSITY 173.30 DU DU/UNIT UNIT COUNT TOTAL DU (DU/UNIT X UNIT COUNT) STUDIO 0.5 DU/UNIT 36 18 1-BED 0.66 DU/UNIT 80 52.8 2-BED 1 DU/UNIT 71 71 3-BED 1.5 DU/UNIT 21 31.5 TOTAL 208 173.30 DENSITY & UNIT MIX (SOUTH) 164.16 DU DENSITY: ALLOWED:6.84 AC X 24 PROPOSED DENSITY 163.60 DU DU/UNIT UNIT COUNT TOTAL DU (DU/UNIT X UNIT COUNT) STUDIO 0.5 DU/UNIT 17 805 1-BED 0.66 DU/UNIT 85 56.1 2-BED 1 DU/UNIT 99 99 TOTAL 201 163.6 SO U T H H I G U E R A S T RRR D RR D RR D R D R D DD SOUTH NORTH ATTACHMENT B Page 287 of 464 STA T E J U R I S D I C T I O N W E T L A N D STA T E J U R I S D I C T I O N W E T L A N D 303 113.50 CP 60D 304 113.54 CP 60D 99 110.26 RRM RBR 98 108.67 CP X SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS TAN K SEW E R M A N H O L E 94.8 2 I N V . X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX X BUIL D I N G CO N C R E T E CON C R E T E CHA I N L I N K F E N C E CHA I N L I N K F E N C E CHA I N L I N K F E N C E TAN K ELE C T R I C A L P A N E L WEL L WOO D F E N C E O N B L O C K UTIL I T Y P O L E GUY W I R E SEW E R M A N H O L E 96.2 6 I N V . SEW E R M A N H O L E 100 . 0 2 I N V . SSM H RIM = 1 0 8 . 9 3 ' INV = 9 3 . 0 2 ' WIRE F E N C E BUIL D I N G W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SDM H RIM = 1 0 8 . 2 5 ' INV = 1 0 1 . 7 3 ' SDM H RIM = 1 1 2 . 8 8 ' INV = 1 0 7 . 0 3 ' SDM H RIM = 1 0 9 . 2 6 ' INV = 1 0 0 . 9 1 ' SD SD SD SD 50000 108.91 RIM OF SSMH SS SS SS SS PO S S I B L E S E W E R UND E R G R O U N D NO S U R F A C E E V I D E 12' S E W E R & P U E PER 9 M B 7 6 FLO O D Z O N E A E FLO O D W A Y A R E A I N Z O N E A E FLO O D Z O N E X FLO O D Z O N E A E LO S O S O S V A L L E Y R D . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 13 12 12 6 7 8 8 8 10' S S EA S E M E N T 9 9 9 SAN L U I S O B I S P O C R E E K SAN L U I S O B I S P O C R E E K 10 10 MATCHLINE C2 MA T C H L I N E C 2 MATCHLIN 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK TOP OF BANK/ RIPARIAN EDGE TOP OF BANK/ RIPARIAN EDGE NO T I N F L O O D P L A I N 12 6 TO P O F B A N K EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED. PROPERLY DISPOSE OF WASTE. REMOVER EXISTING CONCRETE FLATWORK AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF WASTE EXISTING FLOOD PLAIN CONTOUR ELEVATION. PROTECT EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE. PROTECT EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MAINLINE EXISTING WELL TO BE ABANDONED. PROTECT EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLE. EXISTING WATERS OF THE STATE STORMWATER BYPASS SWALE TO BE RELOCATED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED. PROTECT COMMUNICATIONS MANHOLE EXISTING SEWER MAIN TO BE CUT, CAPPED, AND ABANDONED EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE TO BE ABANDONED EXISTING ABANDONED SEWER MAIN EXISTING EARTHEN CONVEYANCE SWALE/DITCH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 IHHW EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA BUILDINGS: 1,755 sf CONCRETE SURFACE: 850 SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA: 2,605 sf PROJECT STATISTICS PRELIMINARY KEY NOTES SS W 880 881 PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING PARCEL LOT LINES ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY LINE 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK LINE EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR EXISTING CREEK FLOWLINE EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER LEGEND BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 T2EXISTING CONDITIONS - NORTH ATTACHMENT B Page 288 of 464 301 111.88 CP 60D 302 98.59CP 60D SS SS SS SS SS SS 98 10 8 . 6 7 C P X SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TREE DRIPLINE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X WIRE FENCE XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X SSMH RIM = 108.93' INV = 93.02' SEWER MANHOL E RIM=108.16' INV=92.14' SEWER MANHOL E RIM=104.77' INV=90.01' SSMH RIM = 104.20' INV = 93.81' SEWER MANHOL E RIM=102.58' INV=89.83' PLASTIC SCREEN F E N C E WIRE FENCE BUILDING W W W W SDMH RIM = 108.25' INV = 101.73 SDMH RIM = 112.88' INV = 107.03' SDMH RIM = 109.26' INV = 100.91' S D S D S D S D SEWER MANHOLE RIM=102.53' UNABLE TO OPEN SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS > > > > > > > > 50000 108.91 RIM OF SSMH W W W W W W W W W W ; ; ; ; SSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX SEWER MANHOLEHOLE RIM=108.1 6'RIM= INV=92.14' LELE SEWER MANHOLEHOLE RIM=102.53'02.53 UNABLE TO OPENUNA SS S SS SS SS SS SS SS SS W W W W 302302 98.5998.59CP 60DCP 60D SS SS SS SS SS XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX TREE DRIP LINEREE DRIPLIN SEWER MAN HOLEHOLE RIM=104.77'04.7 7 INV=90.01 'NV= SEWER MANHOLHOL RIM=102.58'02.5 8 INV=89.83'NV= >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> LL L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R D . SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK MATCHLINE C1 MATCHLINE C1 MA T C H L I N E C 1 10 ' S S E A S E M E N T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 4 10 13 4 85 6 12 12 11 13 1 10' S S EAS E M E N T 10' SS EASEMENT 6 12 12 15 RIPARIAN EDGE TOP OF BANK 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK TOP OF BANK 20' CITY O R D I N A N C E SETBACK RI ZONE X ZONE AE FLOODWAY NOT IN FLOOD PLAIN ZONE AE FLOODWAY ZONE AE ZONE AE TOP OF BANK RIPARIAN EDGE 14 4 EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED. PROPERLY DISPOSE OF WASTE. REMOVER EXISTING CONCRETE FLATWORK AND PROPERLY DISPOSE OF WASTE EXISTING FLOOD PLAIN CONTOUR ELEVATION. PROTECT EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE. PROTECT EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MAINLINE EXISTING WELL TO BE ABANDONED. PROTECT EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLE. EXISTING WATERS OF THE STATE STORMWATER BYPASS SWALE TO BE RELOCATED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO BE REMOVED. PROTECT COMMUNICATIONS MANHOLE EXISTING SEWER MAIN TO BE CUT, CAPPED, AND ABANDONED EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE TO BE ABANDONED EXISTING ABANDONED SEWER MAIN EXISTING EARTHEN CONVEYANCE SWALE/DITCH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 IHHW SS W 880 881 PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING PARCEL LOT LINES ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY LINE 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK LINE EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR EXISTING CREEK FLOWLINE EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER SEWER MAIN TO BE ABANDONED PRELIMINARY KEY NOTES LEGEND APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SPECIAL FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ZONE BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 T3EXISTING CONDITIONS - SOUTH ATTACHMENT B Page 289 of 464 02 4 8 30’ = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET OFOFOFOOOOOFFOOOFOOOFOFFFOOOOFFOFFFFOFOFFOFFFOFFFFOOOFFFOFOFOFOFOFOFFOOOOOFFFOOFOOFFFFOFOFFFFFOFFFFFOFFOFFFFFOOFOFFFOOOOOOOFFFFFFEFFFFFFEFEFEFEFEFEFEEEEEFEFEEFFEEEEFFFFFEEEEFFEEFEEEFEFFEFFFEEEEFEFEEEEEEEEFEEEEEEFEEEEEER R R RRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRR OFOOOOOOOOOOFOFOFOOOOOOOOOFOFOOOOOOOOOOFOFOOFOOOOOOOFOOFOOOFOOOOOOFOOFOOOOFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFOOOOOOOOOFOOO ACACCACAAACAAACAACCACCACACACACCAAACACCACACACACCCCACAACACACACAAAACCAACCCAACAACCAACCCACACAAAACAAACCCACAAAACACCAAAAAAAAAACACACACAAAAACCACAACACAAACCCCAAAACACCCCCCACACCCAAA CECCCCECECCECECECECECCCEEEECEEEEECECCECECECCCEECCECECECECCEECCCCECEECECCECECCEECECEECCECECEEEECEEECECCCCEEEECCEECEEECCEECECCCCEECCCCECEEEEECCEEEEECECEECEEEEECECCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 A1 ENTRY COURTYARD ROAD A RO A D A BLDG B BLDG A BLDG A BLDG A BL D G F RO A D C RO A D B BOCCE BALL COURTS TRASH ENCLOSURE PERIMETER FENCE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R O A D ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - NORTH CREEK/RIPARIAN SETBACK ('*(2)&5((.&255,'25 ATTACHMENT B Page 290 of 464 02 4 8 30’ = 1’-0” 24X36 SHEET BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 A2 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R O A D ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - NORTH - PHASING ATTACHMENT B Page 291 of 464 BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 A3ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - SOUTH COMMUNITY BUILDING BLDG D BLDG D BLDG D BLDG D BLDG D BLDG D BLDG D CREEK/RIPARIAN SETBACK ('*(2)&5((.&255,'25 TOP OF CREEK BANK BLDG E BLDG E BLDG C BLDG C BLDG C L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R O A D BOB JONES TRAIL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ROAD F ROAD E ROAD D ROAD F OFOFOOFOOOOOOOFOFOFOFOFFOFOFOFOFOOOFOFOOFOFOFOOOOOOOOFOOOOOOOOOOOFOFOOFOFOFFOFOOOOFEFFEFEFEFFFFEEFEEFEFEEFFFEFEFFEFEEFEFEFEF R R R R R R RRRRR R OFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFFOFOOFOFFOFOFOOOF ACACACACACACAAAACACACECECECECECECEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS ATTACHMENT B Page 292 of 464 BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 A4ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - SOUTH - PHASING L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R O A D PHASE 1 PHASE 2 ATTACHMENT B Page 293 of 464 BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 A5BUILDING B - ENTRY DROP OFF AND LOBBY ATTACHMENT B Page 294 of 464 BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 A6BUILDING B - EAST ENTRY TO COURTYARD ATTACHMENT B Page 295 of 464 BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 A7BUILDING B- ELEVATIONS FRONT ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1 LEFT ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET) 2 35’ - 0” MAX PROPOSED HABITABLE HEIGHT 35’ - 0” MAX PROPOSED HABITABLE HEIGHT 24’ - 6” THIRD FLOOR FF 24’ - 6” THIRD FLOOR FF 14’ - 0” SECOND FLOOR FF 14’ - 0” SECOND FLOOR FF 44’ - 0” ROOF/SCREENING HEIGHT 44’ - 0” ROOF/SCREENING HEIGHT 0’ -0” 0’ -0” GROUND FLOOR FF GROUND FLOOR FF ATTACHMENT B Page 296 of 464 BBQ X X X X X X X X X X X BBQ BBQ BBQ PSS PSS PSS PSS PS S SS SS SS SS SS SD W W W W FW FW FW S S W W F W F W PW PW W W W W FW FW FW D D SD SS S SS SS SS SS FWW D D D D D D SD D S D D D D D SD D S SS D D D 111.66 FS S S S S 113.30 FS 109.94 FS SS SS PW S S 110.75 FS 111.02 FS 113.00 FS PW S S FW W D D SS SD PW PSS PSS S S S 103 110.61 FD 1.5 IP ILLEG 104 111.12 FD 1.5 IP TAG ILLEG 122107.96 FD BD IN WELL 124 110.58 FD BD IN WELLSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SS SS SS SS FLO O D Z O N E A E FLO O D W A Y A R E A I N Z O N E A E FLO O D Z O N E X FLO O D Z O N E A E 113.8 FF 113.8 FF 113.8 FF 113.2 FF 112.0 FF 111.5 FF 112.0 FF 112.0 FF 112.0 FF 112.5 FF 112.5 FF 113.0 FF 111.5 FF 110.8 FF 110.8 FF 110.8 FF 111.8 FF 111.8 FF 111.8 FF 111.8 FF 111.28 FS 111.43 FS110.84 FS 111.01 FS 110.59 FS 110.82 FS 110.64 FS 110.39 FS 110.15 FS 110.52 FS 110.52 FS 111.49 TC 110.99 FL 111.97 FS 112.84 FS 111.83 FS 108.7 FG 109.2 FG 110.47 FL 110.62 FL 110.07 FL 113.42 FS 113.37 FS 112.96 FS 111.91 FS 112.02 FS 111.67 FS 112.0 FF 111.22 FS 111.71 FS 111.68 FS 1 111.64 FS/GB 111.66 FS/TC 111.57 FS/TC 111.88 FS/GB 1.5% 110.66 FS/TC 111.78 FS111.58 FS 111.79 FS 111.69 FS 110.80 FS 110.00 FS 111.52 FS 112.14 FS 111.80 FS 111.80 FS 113.0 FF 109.66 FS 109.84 FS 0.6 % 0.7 % 1.3% 111.80 FS 1 . 1 % 0.8% 110.69 FS 1.7% 1.6% 1.6 % 111.80 FS 111.80 FS 110.08 FS 110.45 FS 111.52 FS 111.52 FS 111.00 TC 110.50 FS 110.64 TC 110.14 FS 110.31 TC 109.81 FS 110.57 TC 110.07 FS 111.36 TC 110.86 FS 111.00 FS/TC RIM=112.37 INV.(NW)=103.59 INV.(S)=103.49 RIM=110.92 INV.(SE)=104.50 INV.(NW)=98.75 RIM=110.36 INV.(SE)=98.75 INV.(SW)=104.58 TG=109.38 INV.(SE)=105.38 RIM=109.73 INV.(NE)=105.11 INV.(NW,SE)=105.21 TG=109.38 INV.(SE)=105.38 TG=110.27 INV.=107.3 RIM=111.76 INV.(NE)=106.95 INV.(S)=106.85 RIM=112.20 INV.(N)=106.62 INV.(SW)=106.52 RIM=111.39 INV.(NE)=105.64 INV.(SW)=99.75 RIM=110.83 INV.(NE)=99.75 INV.(SW)=99.75 INV.(NW)=105.50 RIM=110.79 INV.(NW)=104.40 INV.(SW)=99.75 INV.(NE)=99.75 TG=110.27 INV.=104.50 RIM=110.41 INV.(NW)=104.94 RIM=110.08 INV.(NW)=104.41 RIM=109.37 INV.(NE)=98.75 INV.(SW)=98.25 INV.(SE)=104.09 INV.(NW)=105.60 RIM=109.46 INV.(NW)=104.00 INV.(SW)=98.25 INV.(NE)=98.25 TG/OUTLET ELEV.=108.81 INV.(SE)=103.75 RIM=110.06 INV.(NE)=98.25 INV.(SW)=98.25 RIM=110.52 INV.(NE)=104.93 INV.(SE)=98.25 RIM=111.61 INV.(NW)=107.30 RIM=111.20 INV.(W)=106.55 RIM=110.75 INV.(SW)=105.62 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 111.80 FS 1.0% MATCHLINE C3 MATCHLINE C3 MA T C H L I N E C 3 RIM=106.10 INV. (E) = 102.19 INV. (SW) = 102.09 RIM=106.53 INV. (SE) =102.47 INV. (W) = 102.37 RIM=107.79 INV (NE) = 103 26 106.44 FS 1096FF 108.2 FF 108.6 FF 106.53 TC 107.64 TC 107.6 FF 0.5%107.3 FF 104.2 EG 103.6 EG103.2 EG 109.6 FF 108.2 FF LO S O S O S V A L L E Y R D . RO A D A RO A D A RO A D A ROA D A R O A D B R O A D C RO A D A 110.00 TW HT=1.33' 109.67 FG 110.67 TW HT=3.33' 108.85 FS 114.67 TW HT= 6.67' 109.16 FS 114.00 TW HT= 2.67' 112.00 FS 115.33 TW HT= 6.00' 110.50 FG 115.33 TW HT= 5.33' 111.25 FS 111.33 TW HT= 1.33' 111.10 FG 109.00 TW HT=1.33' 108.67 FG 111.00TW HT=3.33' 108.83 FS 111.00TW HT=3.33' 109.16 FS 111.00TW HT=1.33' 110.67 FG 112.00 TW HT=1.33' 111.67 FG 112.00 TW HT=4.00' 109.26 FG 112.00 TW HT=2.67' 110.65 FG 112.00 TW HT=2.67' 110.45 FG 112.00 TW HT=2.67' 110.67 FG 112.00 TW HT=1.33' 111.67 FG 112.00 TW HT=1.33' 111.67 FG 112.67 TW HT=2.67' 111.33 FG 112.67 TW HT=2.00' 111.67 FG 108.67 TW HT=1.33' 108.33 FG 112.67 TW HT=4.67' 109.40 FG RAMP OR SLOPED WALK IN BUILDING RAMP OR SLOPED WALK IN BUILDING ESTIMATED 109.00 FLOOD PLAIN CONTOUR ESTIMATED 108.00 FLOOD PLAIN COUNTOUR REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE RUBBLE AND DEBRIS. REPLACE WITH RIP RAP PER CAL TRANS GUIDELINES. TIE-IN TO EXISTING MANHOLE INV. = ±101.7 STORMTECH MC-4500 T.O.C. ELEV.= 103.5 B.O.C. ELEV. = 98.5 STORMTECH MC-4500 T.O.C. ELEV.= 103.0 B.O.C. ELEV. = 98.0 STORMTECH MC-4500 T.O.C. ELEV.= 103.0 B.O.C. ELEV. = 98.0 STORMTECH MC-4500 T.O.C. ELEV.= 103.0 B.O.C. ELEV. = 98.0 STORMTECH MC-4500 T.O.C. ELEV.= 104.5 B.O.C. ELEV. = 99.5 STORMTECH MC-4500 T.O.C. ELEV.= 104.5 B.O.C. ELEV. = 99.5 111.20 TW/FS HT=3.6' 108.60 FG 110.57 TW/TC HT=1.6' 110.00 FG 110.50 TW HT=1.0' 110.40 FG 110.60 TW/FS HT=3.3' 108.29 FG RO A D F 106.13 FS 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK TOP OF BANK/ RIPARIAN EDGE TOP OF BANK/ RIPARIAN EDGE TG=109.05 INV. (NE) = 103.54 INV. (SW) = 103.44 106.4 FG 106.3 FG NOTE: STORM DRAIN INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LATEST VERSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. INSTALL 6" WIDE TRENCH DRAIN WITH 8" WIDE, HIGH HEEL APPROVED GRATE AND CONNECT TO STORM DRAIN. INSTALL 48" STORM DRAIN MANHOLE PER STD. 3520 INSTALL MIDSTATE CONCRETE BOX WITH TRAFFIC RATED GRATE AND FLO-GUARD INSERT FILTER FOR PRE-TREATMENT. INSTALL SIDE OPENING CATCH BASIN WITH SUMP PER STD. 3355. ALSO INSTALL FLO-GUARD INSET FILTER FOR PRE-TREATMENT . INSTALL HDPE STORM DRAIN. MIN SLOPE = 0.005 FT/FT 1 2 3 4 5 IHHW GRADING NOTES 1. DRIVEWAYS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 1% AND A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 10%. 2. THERE SHALL BE A 0.5" LIP AT THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE. 3. GARAGES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 1% SLOPE AND A MAXIMUM OF 2% SLOPE. 4. HEIGHT OF WALL INCLUDED 12" OF COVER OVER FOOTING. 5. STEP GARAGE WITH GRADE. ABBREVIATIONS FF FINISHED FLOOR FP FINISHED PAD FS FINISHED SURFACE FL FLOWLINE TC TOP OF CURB EG EXISTING GRADE FG FINISHED GRADE INV INVERT TG TOP OF GRATE TW TOP OF WALL HT HEIGHT B.O.B. BOTTOM OF BASIN T.O.C. TOP OF CHAMBER B O C BOTTOM OF CHAMBER PRELIMINARY KEY NOTES RAW CUT 8,000CY ޤ RAW FILL ޤ 6,350CY STORMTECH CHAMBERS 1,450 CY ޤ PERMEABLE PAVERS 280 CY - TRENCH SPOILS 5,075 CY ޤ AC PAVING 1,950 CY ޤ BUILDINGS 3,325 CY ޤ SHRINKAGE 15%ޤ 950 CY TOTAL EARTHWORK 20,080 CY 7,300 CY CUT FILL 12" MIN SECTION ASSUMED 3" AC OVER 10" AB ASSUMED 10" SLAB THE APPROXIMATE RAW EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON REPRESENT THE ESTIMATED VOLUMETRIC DIFFERENCE CALCULATED BETWEEN THE PROPOSED SUBGRADE AND EXISTING GRADE SURFACE, AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. THESE ESTIMATES DO NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERATIONS FOR LOSSES OR BULKING DUE TO: SOIL AMENDMENTS, STABILIZATION, CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE, FOOTING & TRENCHING SPOILS, ETC. THESE CONSIDERATIONS, IN ADDITION TO ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS AND THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, MAY SIGNIFICANTLY EFFECT THE FINAL IMPORT/EXPORT QUANTITIES. APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CALCULATE ACTUAL QUANTITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION AND COST ESTIMATES. CONTRACTOR IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO SLOPE HINGE POINTS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE GRADED PAD AREA ADJACENT TO PATHS, WALKWAYS, AND ROADS FOR UTILITY BOXES, TRANSFORMERS, AND ABOVE GROUND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE. APPROXIMATE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES FOR LOVR NORTH SS W 880 881 PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING PARCEL LOT LINES ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY LINE 20' ORDINANCE SETBACK LINE EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR EXISTING CREEK FLOWLINE EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER LEGEND BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 C1GRADING AND DRAINING PLAN - NORTH ATTACHMENT B Page 297 of 464 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; D D D D SD SD SD S D D D D S D S D D D D SD D D S PW PW PW PW PW PW PW PW PW PW D SD SD SD SD SD PSS PSS PSS PSS PSS D D D P S S P S S PSS PSS S S S S S S S SD S D D D S D X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X W W W S D S D W W W W W W W W W W MATCHLINE C3 MATC H L I N E C 3 MATCHLINE C3 0.5% 1 . 0 % 0.7% 0.5% 0.8% 1.0% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 OUTLET BUBBLE UP STRUCTURE WITH RIPRAP INV. (SE) = 95.00 TG-OUT = ±96.9 CUSTOM BOX TO TAKE OFFSITE WATER TG = ±103.0 INV. = 98.00 JUNCTION BOX TG = ±99.5 INV. = 94.45 FUTURE OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS INSTALL ADS WYE CONNECTION 2 3 2 EXISTING SAN LUIS CREEK 2 2 L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R D . R O A D D R O A D E ROAD F R O A D F ROAD F RO A D F ROAD F L.O.V.R. B Y P A S S L.O.V.R. BYPASS A L L E Y RIPARIAN EDGE TOP OF BANK 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK TOP OF BANK 3 3 2 2 OUTLET INV. = 101.40 3 3 2 STORMTECH MC-7200 T.O.C. ELEV.= 101.50 B.O.C. ELEV.= 96.50 2 STORMTECH MC-7200 T.O.C. ELEV.= 99.25 B.O.C. ELEV.= 94.25 STORMTECH MC-7200 T.O.C. ELEV.= 100.75 B.O.C. ELEV.= 95.75 STORMTECH MC-7200 T.O.C. ELEV.= 100.75 B.O.C. ELEV.= 95.75 RIPARIAN EDGE B.O.B ELEV. = 95.5 T.O.B ELEV. 98.5 VOLUME = 15,800 CF SURFACE BASIN FOR FLOODWAY DISPLACEMENT VOLUME NOTE: STORM DRAIN INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LATEST VERSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. INSTALL 6" WIDE TRENCH DRAIN WITH 8" WIDE, HIGH HEEL APPROVED GRATE AND CONNECT TO STORM DRAIN. INSTALL 48" STORM DRAIN MANHOLE PER STD. 3520 INSTALL MIDSTATE CONCRETE BOX WITH TRAFFIC RATED GRATE AND FLO-GUARD INSERT FILTER FOR PRE-TREATMENT. INSTALL SIDE OPENING CATCH BASIN WITH SUMP PER STD. 3355. ALSO INSTALL FLO-GUARD INSET FILTER FOR PRE-TREATMENT . INSTALL HDPE STORM DRAIN. MIN SLOPE = 0.005 FT/FT 1 2 3 4 5 IHHW h-G P - A m e n d \ E n g i n e e r i n g \ D e s D e v \ S h e e t - F i l e s \ C 3 - C 4 - G r a d i n g a n d D r a i n a g e . d w g , C 4 , D e c 0 3 , 2 0 2 4 1 1 : 2 6 a m , R A G o m e z RAW CUT 2,500 CY ޤ RAW FILL ޤ 13,486 CY PERMEABLE PAVERS 519 CY - TRENCH SPOILS 6,400 CY ޤ AC PAVING 1,756 CY ޤ BUILDINGS 3,012 CY ޤ SHRINKAGE 15%ޤ 2,023 CY TOTAL EARTHWORK 14,187 CY 15,509 CY GRADING NOTES 1. DRIVEWAYS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 1% AND A MAXIMUM SLOPE OF 10%. 2. THERE SHALL BE A 0.5" LIP AT THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE. 3. GARAGES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 1% SLOPE AND A MAXIMUM OF 2% SLOPE. 4. HEIGHT OF WALL DOES NOT EXCEED 5' EXPOSED. 5. STEP GARAGE WITH GRADE. ABBREVIATIONS FF FINISHED FLOOR FP FINISHED PAD FS FINISHED SURFACE FL FLOWLINE TC TOP OF CURB EG EXISTING GRADE FG FINISHED GRADE INV INVERT TG TOP OF GRATE TW TOP OF WALL HT HEIGHT T.O.B . TOP OF BASIN B.O.B. BOTTOM OF BASIN T.O.C. TOP OF CHAMBER B.O.C. BOTTOM OF CHAMBER PRELIMINARY KEY NOTES THE APPROXIMATE RAW EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON REPRESENT THE ESTIMATED VOLUMETRIC DIFFERENCE CALCULATED BETWEEN THE PROPOSED SUBGRADE AND EXISTING GRADE SURFACE, AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. THESE ESTIMATES DO NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERATIONS FOR LOSSES OR BULKING DUE TO: SOIL AMENDMENTS, STABILIZATION, CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE, FOOTING & TRENCHING SPOILS, ETC. THESE CONSIDERATIONS, IN ADDITION TO ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS AND THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, MAY SIGNIFICANTLY EFFECT THE FINAL IMPORT/EXPORT QUANTITIES. APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CALCULATE ACTUAL QUANTITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION AND COST ESTIMATES. CONTRACTOR IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO SLOPE HINGE POINTS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE GRADED PAD AREA ADJACENT TO PATHS, WALKWAYS, AND ROADS FOR UTILITY BOXES, TRANSFORMERS, AND ABOVE GROUND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE. APPROXIMATE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES FOR L.O.V.R. SOUTH CUT FILL 12" MIN SECTION ASSUMED 3" AC OVER 10" AB ASSUMED 10" SLAB SS W 880 881 PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING PARCEL LOT LINES ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY LINE 20' ORDINANCE SETBACK LINE EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR EXISTING CREEK FLOWLINE EXISTING WATER EXISTING SEWER LEGEND BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 C2GRADING AND DRAINING PLAN - SOUTH ATTACHMENT B Page 298 of 464 024 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS 0024 M024 Max024 Max24242424224 M24444024 Max24 Ma024 Max024 M024 MaxMaxarax4 MaxaMaxar4 Maxar024022024024 4 MMMMaxax024 M202244MMaxaMMMMx0244Ma02022022240024 ©CNES (2©CNES (2©CNES (2©CNES (222©CNES (2((((024) 024) D024) Dis) D DDD) Dist024) DistDisttDistDistDist024) Dist)DDistDistDistDiststDisttDD00Dributributionibutibutionributionibuution rributributionrrribrirnrrritori Airbus DSAirbus DSAirbus DAirbusAirbusAirbus DSAiirbirbus DAirbuAirbus Drbuirbuus DAirbus DSDDAirbus DSAirrbubAirbus Drbus DSDAirbrbrbuirbuAbusbus DAirbusbDArbuuDArb BBQ X X X X X X X X X X X BBQ BBQ BBQ PSS PSS PSS PSS PSS SS SS SS SS SS SD W W W W FW FW FW S S W W F W F W PW PW W W W W FW FW FW D D SD SS S SS SS SS SS FWW D D D D D D SD D S D D D D D SD D S SS D D D S S S S SS SS PW S S PW B-B C1 1 S W S FW W D D SS SD PW PSS PSS S S S 103 110.61 FD 1.5 IP ILLEG 104 111.12 FD 1.5 IP TAG ILLEG 122 107.96 FD BD IN WELL 124110.58FD BD IN WELLSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SS SS SS FLO O D Z O N E A E FLO O D W A Y A R E A I N Z O N E A E FLO O D Z O N E X FLO O D Z O N E A E W LO S O S O S V A L L E Y R D . RO A D A ROA D A RO A D A R O A D B R O A D C RO A D A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 7 9 10 10 10 2 2 8 RO A D F 3' 3' 9 CONTINUE STRIPING TO EXISTING BOB JONES TRAIL TERMINUS MATCHLINE C6 MA T C H L I N E C 6 C- C C1 1 TIE-IN TO EXISTING CONCRETE PATH 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK TOP OF BANK/ RIPARIAN EDGE TOP OF BANK/ RIPARIAN EDGE BIKE ENTRY RAMP UP TO PROTECTED INTERSECTION BIKEWAY 13 . 6 ' NOTE: SITE FEATURES ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LATEST VERSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP PER CALTRANS STANDARD A88A. BIKE RACK. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS. 6" CONCRETE CURB PER STD. 4020. (MINIMUM 18" DEEPENED CURB WHEN ADJACENT TO LANDSCAPE) CURB AND GUTTER PER STD. 4030 REINFORCED CONCRETE PATH PER LANDSCAPE PLANS 0" FLUSH CONCRETE CURB PER MODIFIED STD. 4020 SIDEWALK PER STD. 4110 DRIVEWAY APPROACH PER STD. 2110 CONCRETE V-GUTTER PER DETAIL THIS SHEET CROSS GUTTER PER STD. 4310. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 #3 BARS @10" O.C. LASS II BASE, OR OTHERWISE NOTED PER SOILS REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS #3 @ 24" O.C. WIDTH PER PLAN 8" 3" 2%2% COMPACTED SUBGRADE AT 95% W PSS PROPOSED PRIVATE DOMESTIC WATER & FIRE WATER (SEE UTILITY PLAN) PROPOSED PUBLIC SEWER MAIN LINE (SEE UTILITY PLAN) PROPOSED PRIVATE STORM DRAIN (SEE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS)SD DOMESTIC WATER METER W EXISTING WATER FW 48" CITY STANDARD MANHOLE (SEE UTILITY PLAN) CITY STANDARD CLEANOUT (SEE UTILITY PLAN) S PROPOSED CITY STANDARD FIRE HYDRANT AND FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF JOINT TRENCHJT IHHW LEGEND PROPOSED AC PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA PROPOSED PERVIOUS PAVER AREA PRELIMINARY KEY NOTES PW PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER (SEE UTILTY PLAN) SS PROPOSED PRIVATE SEWER MAIN LINE (SEE UTILITY PLAN) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY LINE 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK LINE BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 C3SITE IMPROVEMENTS - NORTH ATTACHMENT B Page 299 of 464 NOTE: SITE FEATURES ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LATEST VERSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP PER CALTRANS STANDARD A88A. BIKE RACK. SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS. 6" CONCRETE CURB PER STD. 4020. (MINIMUM 18" DEEPENED CURB WHEN ADJACENT TO LANDSCAPE) CURB AND GUTTER PER STD. 4030 REINFORCED CONCRETE PATH PER LANDSCAPE PLANS 0" FLUSH CONCRETE CURB PER MODIFIED STD. 4020 SIDEWALK PER STD. 4110 DRIVEWAY APPROACH PER STD. 2110 CONCRETE V-GUTTER PER DETAIL THIS SHEET CROSS GUTTER PER STD. 4310. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 24 Maxar ©CNES (2024) Distribution Airbus DS 242224 Maxa2242424 Max4Maxar 24 Max4 MaxarMaxar 24 Maxar24 M24 Ma2424242424444 Maxa24 Maxar224 Max24 M24244M4Max2424244 Max4M4444 Maxa4 Max4 Max44MM44M4MMM4M4M4MMMMM xa Maxaxax ©CNES (2 ©CNES (2©CNES (2 ©CNES (2©CNES (2CNES (2NES (S(S((S(((024) Dis024) 4) Di) DistDistDistDist)DDDist) DististD 024 Di 02 D)DDDistDist)D)Diisttribribution ribriribributionibutribuutio n ribribributionibutionriribrib n riibbbution tinAirbus DSAAAirbus DSAirbus DAirbusAirbuAirbubusAirbubusbuAirbusAirbus DSAirbus DAirbus DSAAirbusAirbuAirbus DSAAirbus DSAiAAirbus DSA u AirbusirbuAiAirbus DSAirbus DSirAirbus Dirbusirrbbbus DSbu DDS D F-F C1 1 E - EC 1 1 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; E-E C11 S S W W W W FW FW FW S S S D F W F W W W W F W FWW D D D SS SS SS S S S S SD SD SD S D D D D S D S D D D D S SD D D S PW PW PW PW PW PW PW PW PW PW W W W W W W FW FW FW FW FW FW SS S S S SS SS SS SS S D SD SD SD SD SD PSS PSS PSS PSS PSS D D D P S S P S S PSS PSS S S S S S S S SD S D D D S D 106 107.03 FD 1.5 IP ILLEG 10 7 98 . 5 6 FD 1 . 5 I P I L L E G SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS W W W S D S D S D SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS W W W W W W W W W W L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R D . ROAD 6 6 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 9 3 33 3 3 3 3 7 9 R O A D D R O A D E ROAD F R O A D F ROAD F RO A D F ROAD F L.O.V.R. B Y P A S S L.O.V.R. B Y P A S S A L L E Y 10 10 4 4 4 4 4 RIPARIAN EDGE TOP OF BANK 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK TOP OF BANK 12' MULTI-USE PATH FUTURE OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS 9 6 ' 3' 6 ' 6' 3' 3 ' 3' H - H C 1 1 G - G C1 1 MATCHLINE C5 MATCHLINE C5 MA T C H L I N E C 5 3' 4 13 . 6 ' #3 BARS @10" O.C. LASS II BASE, OR OTHERWISE NOTED PER SOILS REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS #3 @ 24" O.C. WIDTH PER PLAN 8" 3" 2%2% COMPACTED SUBGRADE AT 95% PRELIMINARY KEY NOTES uth - G P - A m e n d \ E n g i n e e r i n g \ D e s D e v \ S h e e t - F i l e s \ C 5 - C 6 - S i t e I m p r o v e m e n t s . d w g , C 6 , D e c 0 3 , 2 0 2 4 1 1 : 2 7 a m , R A G o m e z IHHW LEGEND W PSS PROPOSED PRIVATE DOMESTIC WATER & FIRE WATER (SEE UTILITY PLAN) PROPOSED PUBLIC SEWER MAIN LINE (SEE UTILITY PLAN) PROPOSED PRIVATE STORM DRAIN (SEE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS) SD DOMESTIC WATER METER W EXISTING WATER FW 48" CITY STANDARD MANHOLE (SEE UTILITY PLAN) CITY STANDARD CLEANOUT (SEE UTILITY PLAN) S PROPOSED CITY STANDARD FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF JOINT TRENCHJT PROPOSED AC PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA PROPOSED PERVIOUS PAVER AREA PW PROPOSED PUBLIC WATER (SEE UTILTY PLAN) SS PROPOSED PRIVATE SEWER MAIN LINE (SEE UTILITY PLAN) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY LINE 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK LINE BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 C4SITE IMPROVEMENTS - SOUTH ATTACHMENT B Page 300 of 464 BBQ X X X X X X X X X X X BBQ BBQ BBQ PSS PSS PSS PSS PS S SS SS SS SS SS SD W W W W FW FW FW S S W W F W F W PW PW W W W W FW FW FW D D SD SS S SS SS SS SS FWW D D D D D D SD D S D D D D D SD D S SS D D D S S S S SS SS P W S S PW S W S D FW W D D D SS SD PW PSS PSS S S S 103 110.61 FD 1.5 IP ILLEG 104 111.12 FD 1.5 IP TAG ILLEG 122107.96 FD BD IN WELL 124 110.58 FD BD IN WELLSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS X X X X X X XX X X XX X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SS SS SS FLO O D Z O N E A E FLO O D W A Y A R E A I N Z O N E A E FLO O D Z O N E X FLO O D Z O N E A E W L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R D . TIE INTO EXISTING MANHOLE: INV. (E) = 99.92 INV. (W) = ±100.02112.08 RIM INV. (NE) = 99.46 INV. (NW) = 99.36 110.98 RIM INV. (NE) = 103.95 INV. (NW)= 103.95 INV. (SW) = 103.85 113.04 RIM INV. (NE) = 101.60 INV. (NW) = 101.50 110.40 RIM INV. (SE) = 104.53 111.77 RIM INV. (SW) = 106.65 111.80 RIM INV. (NE) = 106.76 RO A D A ROA D A RO A D A R O A D B R O A D C RO A D A 110.89 RIM INV. (NE) = 101.21 INV. (NW) = 101.11 MATCHLINE C8 MA T C H L I N E C 8 RO A D F 109.97 RIM INV. (NE) = 95.57 INV. (SW) = 95.47 111.07 RIM INV. (NE) = 96.23 INV. (SW) = 96.13 110.54 RIM INV. (NE) = 97.85 INV. (SW) = 97.75 111.02 RIM INV. (E) = 98.22 INV. (SW) = 98.12 111.15 RIM INV. (SE) = 98.70 INV. (W) = 98.60 111.52 RIM INV. (SE) = 99.63 INV. (SW) = 99.53 112.48 RIM INV. (SW) = 105.43 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 77 77 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 8 111.45 RIM EX. INV. (NE) = 99.20 INV. (SE) = 98.90 INV. (NW) = 98.80 7 111.8 FF 111.8 FF 111.8 FF 111.8 FF 111.8 FF 111.8 FF 111.8 FF 111.8 FF 113.0 FF 113.0 FF 112.5 FF 112.5 FF 112.0 FF 112.0 FF 112.0 FF 112.0 FF 111.5 FF 111.5 FF 112.0 FF 112.0 FF 113.2 FF 113.2 FF 113.8 FF 113.8 FF 113.8 FF 113.8 FF 111.5 FF 111.5 FF 110.8 FF 110.8 FF 110.8 FF 111.8 FF 111.8 FF EXISTING 8" WATER MAIN CONNECT PROPOSED 8" PUBLIC WATER TO EXISTING WATER MAIN 5 1 112.59 RIM INV. (NE) = 94.91 INV. (SW) = 94.81 7 EXISTING 18" DUCTILE IRON WATER MAIN LINE INTERCEPT EXISTING SEWER FROM LOS VERDES PARK I EXISTING 8" SEWER 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK TOP OF BANK/ RIPARIAN EDGE TOP OF BANK/ RIPARIAN EDGE CONNECT PROPOSED 8" PUBLIC WATER TO EXISTING 18" WATER MAIN PROPOSED 8" PUBLIC WATER MAIN 9 NOTE: UTILITIES ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LATEST VERSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8" REDUCE PRESSURE PRINCIPLE BACKFLOW DEVICE PER STD. 6550 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY PER STD. 6310 DOMESTIC 2" WATER SERVICE AND METER PER 6210 4" FIRE WATER SERVICE PER STD. 6530 8" DOUBLE CHECK BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE PER STD. 6420 SEWER LATERAL SERVICE PER STD. 6810 48" SEWER MANHOLE PER STD. 6610 SEWER CLEANOUT PER STD. 6710 2" DOMESTIC BACKFLOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 36 " M I N . CO V E R 48" WATER TRENCH 8" FIRE WATER MAIN 27" 8" PRIVATE DOMESTIC WATER MAIN 24" 6" MI N . BEDDING SAND 48 " M I N . CO V E R 6" MI N . IHHW LEGEND PRELIMINARY KEY NOTES W PSS PROPOSED PRIVATE 8" PVC WATER & 8" FIRE WATER PER PRIVATE WATER AND FIRE TRENCH DETAIL THIS SHEET PROPOSED 12" PUBLIC PVC SEWER MAIN LINE. (S = 0.004 FT/FT MIN.) U.N.O. PER PLAN PROPOSED PRIVATE STORM DRAIN (SEE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS)SD DOMESTIC WATER METER W EXISTING WATER FW 48" CITY STANDARD MANHOLE CITY STANDARD CLEANOUT S PROPOSED CITY STANDARD FIRE HYDRANT AND FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF JOINT TRENCHJT PW PROPOSED PUBLIC 8" PVC WATER U.N.O SS PROPOSED 8" PRIVATE PVC SEWER MAIN LINE. (S = 0.005 FT/FT MIN.) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY LINE 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK LINE C5BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025UTILITY PLAN - NORTH ATTACHMENT B Page 301 of 464 NOTE: UTILITIES ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LATEST VERSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8" REDUCE PRESSURE PRINCIPLE BACKFLOW DEVICE PER STD. 6550 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY PER STD. 6310 DOMESTIC 2" WATER SERVICE AND METER PER 6210 4" FIRE WATER SERVICE PER STD. 6530 8" DOUBLE CHECK BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE PER STD. 6420 SEWER LATERAL SERVICE PER STD. 6810 48" SEWER MANHOLE PER STD. 6610 SEWER CLEANOUT PER STD. 6710 2" DOMESTIC BACKFLOW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D ; ; ; ; ; ; ; S S W W W W FW FW FW S S S D F W F W W W W F W FWW D D D SS SS SS S S S S SD SD SD S D D D D S D S D D D D S SD D D S PW PW PW PW PW PW PW PW PW PW W W W W W W FW FW FW FW FW FW SS S S S SS SS SS SS S D SD SD SD SD SD PSS PSS PSS PSS PSS D D D P S S P S S PSS PSS S S S S S S S SD SD D D S D 106 107.03 FD 1.5 IP ILLEG 10 7 98 . 5 6 FD 1 . 5 I P I L L E G SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS W W W S D S D S D SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS W W W W W W W W W W LO S O S O S V A L L E Y R D . ROAD MATCHLINE C7 MATCHLINE C7 MA T C H L I N E C 7 1 R O A D D R O A D E ROAD F R O A D F ROAD F RO A D F ROAD F L.O.V.R. B Y P A S S L.O.V.R. B Y P A S S A L L E Y RIPARIAN EDGE TOP OF BANK 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK TOP OF BANK 12' MULTI-USE PATH FUTURE OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS 5 1 5 2 3 7 7 7 3 4 3 6 6 4 2 3 3 6 6 6 6 4 7 6 3 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 6 2 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 4 PUBLIC SS STUB INV. = 91.28 7 7 CONNECT PROPOSED 12" PUBLIC WATER TO EXISTING 18" WATER MAIN CONNECT PROPOSED 8" PUBLIC WATER TO EXISTING 18 " W A T E R M A I N 36 " M I N . CO V E R 48" WATER TRENCH 8" FIRE WATER MAIN 27" 8" PRIVATE DOMESTIC WATER MAIN 24" 6" MI N . BEDDING SAND 48 " M I N . CO V E R 6" MI N . PRELIMINARY KEY NOTES IHHW W PSS PROPOSED PRIVATE 8" PVC WATER & 8" FIRE WATER PER PRIVATE WATER AND FIRE TRENCH DETAIL THIS SHEET PROPOSED 12" PUBLIC PVC SEWER MAIN LINE. (S = 0.004 FT/FT MIN.) U.N.O. PER PLAN PROPOSED PRIVATE STORM DRAIN (SEE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS)SD DOMESTIC WATER METER W EXISTING WATER FW 48" CITY STANDARD MANHOLE CITY STANDARD CLEANOUT S PROPOSED CITY STANDARD FIRE HYDRANT AND FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF JOINT TRENCHJT LEGEND PW PROPOSED PUBLIC 12" PVC WATER SS PROPOSED 8" PRIVATE PVC SEWER MAIN LINE. (S = 0.005 FT/FT MIN.) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY LINE 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK LINE C6BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025UTILITY PLAN - SOUTH ATTACHMENT B Page 302 of 464 SD D D SD D D D D D D SD D D D D D D SD D D D D D D D SD LO S O S O S V A L L E Y R D . ROA D A RO A D A RO A D A RO A D A R O A D B R O A D C RO A D A MC- 4 5 0 0 C H A M B E R S VOL U M E = 1 0 , 9 0 0 C F M C - 4 5 0 0 C H A M B E R S V O L U M E = 6 , 5 7 5 C F MC- 4 5 0 0 C H A M B E R S VOL U M E = 1 2 , 8 0 0 C F M A T C H L I N E C 8 RO A D F MATCHLINE C8 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK TOP OF BANK/ RIPARIAN EDGE TOP OF BANK/ RIPARIAN EDGE DMA 1B DMA 1C DMA 1 DMA 8 DMA 2 DMA 5 DMA 3 DMA 4 DMA 7 DMA 6 X X X X XX X X X X X X X XX X X XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X 10 8 SD SD SD SD FLO O D Z O N E A E FLO O D W A Y A R E A I N Z O N E A E FLO O D Z O N E X ZO NE A E FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY LEGEND DMA 1A (49,844 SF) TIER 1- RUNOFF REDUCTION x ROOF DRAIN DISCONNECT x MINIMIZE IMPERVIOUS AREAS TIER 2 - WATER QUALITY (85th PERCENTILE = 1.15") x ON-SITE RETENTION-BASED INFILTRATION TIER 3 - RETAIN 95TH PERCENTILE STORM EVENT (1.95") x PAVERS WILL RETAIN AND INFILTRATE AN APPROXIMATE VOLUME OF 4,500 CF x STORAGE CHAMBERS WILL RETAIN AND INFILTRATE APPROXIMATE VOLUME 26,805 CF TIER 4 - PEAK MANAGEMENT x BASIN AND STORAGE CHAMBERS ONSITE ARE SIZED TO DETAIN UP TO A THE DIFFERENCE IN THE 100-YEAR STORM WATER RUN-OFF OF THE UNDEVELOPED SITE AND THE 100-YEAR STORM WATER RUN-OFF OF THE DEVELOPED SITE. PROJECT STATISTICS REQUIRED STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES (A) EXISTING CONDITION IMPERVIOUS AREA: 2,605 SF PERVIOUS AREA: 329,313 SF (B) PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA: 200,229 SF PERMEABLE PAVER AREA: 7,541 SF LANDSCAPE AREA: 73,502 SF TOTAL PERVIOUS AREA: 81,044 SF DMA 2 (74,345 SF) DMA 3 (92,605 SF) DMA 4 (8,535 SF) SELF RETAINING DMA 5 (8,631 SF) SELF RETAINING DMA 6 SELF TREATING LANDSCAPE (13,210 SF) DMA 7 (16,861 SF) SELF TREATING WETLAND MITIGATION DMA 8 (8,592 SF) SELF TREATING LANDSCAPE IHHW 18" 36" 3" MULCH FLAT BOTTOM NO SLOPES GRAVEL STORAGE NO. 2 STONE BIORETENTION SOIL MIX 12" 24" CONCRETE CATCH BASIN OVERFLOW / OUTLET STRUCTURE 18" HDPE OUTLET SEE PLAN FOR CONTINUATION OWNER MAINTAINED WATER QUALITY TREATMENT AREA NOTES: 1. BIORETENTION SOIL MIX (B.S.M.) SHALL BE 60 TO 70% SAND, 15 TO 25% COMPOST, AND 10 TO 20% CLEAN TOPSOIL. THE ORGANIC CONTENT SHALL BE 8 TO 12% AND PH RANGE SHALL BE 5.5 TO 7.5. 2. STONE MATERIAL SHALL BE WASHED, OPEN-GRADED (NO SAND), CRUSHED (ANGULAR) AGGREGATE. 3. NATIVE SOIL BENEATH INFILTRATION BED SHALL BE OVER-EXCAVATED A MINIMUM OF 1.0' AND REPLACED UNIFORMLY WITHOUT COMPACTION. 4. INSTALL BENDER BOARD WITH 12" REDWOOD STAKES, ON B.S.M. SIDE, AT 4' CENTERS. SPLICE BENDER BOARD WITH 1" x 4" x 24" SPLICE BOARD. PROVIDE 2" OF EXPOSED BENDER BOARD ABOVE B.S.M. BIORETENTION TREATMENT FACILITY NTSA INSTALL 2" X 6" BENDER BOARD OR APPROVED EQUAL AROUND ENTIRE BASIN BOTTOM TO DELINEATE THE INTERFACE OF B.S.M. AND NATIVE SOIL. COBBLE OR SPLASH BLOCK WHERE STORM WATER ENTERS 6" MIN. PONDING DEPTH DMA 1B (23,023 SF) DMA 1C (14,224 SF) C7BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - NORTH ATTACHMENT B Page 303 of 464 D ; ; ; ; ; D D D D SD SD SD S D D D D S D S D D D D SD D D D SD SD SD SD SD D D D SD SD D D S D L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R D . ROAD A R O A D F ROAD F A L L E Y FUTURE OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS M A T C H L I N E C 7 MA T C H L I N E C 7 RIPARIAN EDGE TOP OF BANK 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK TOP OF BANK R O A D D R O A D E ROAD F RO A D F L.O.V.R. B Y P A S S L.O.V.R. BYPASS DMA 9 DMA 9 DMA 9 DMA 10 O S DMA 12 DMA 11 DMA 14 DMA 13 D M A 1 B B.O.B ELEV. = 95.5 T.O.B ELEV. 98.5 VOLUME = 15,800 CF SURFACE BASIN FOR FLOODWAY DISPLACEMENT VOLUME RIPARIAN EDGE DMA 15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X S D S D S D FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY LEGEND DMA 9 (11,924 SF) SELF RETAINING TIER 1- RUNOFF REDUCTION x ROOF DRAIN DISCONNECT x MINIMIZE IMPERVIOUS AREAS TIER 2 - WATER QUALITY (85th PERCENTILE = 1.15") x ON-SITE RETENTION-BASED INFILTRATION TIER 3 - RETAIN 95TH PERCENTILE STORM EVENT (1.95") x ROADSIDE SWALES WILL RETAIN AND INFILTRATE AN APPROXIMATE VOLUME OF 10,000 CF x RETENTION BASIN WILL RETAIN AND INFILTRATE APPROXIMATE VOLUME 31,000 CF TIER 4 - PEAK MANAGEMENT x BASIN IS SIZED TO DETAIN UP TO A THE DIFFERENCE IN THE 100-YEAR STORM WATER RUN-OFF OF THE UNDEVELOPED SITE AND THE 100-YEAR STORM WATER RUN-OFF OF THE DEVELOPED SITE. PROJECT STATISTICS REQUIRED STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES (A) EXISTING CONDITION IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0 SF PERVIOUS AREA: 286,768 SF (B) PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA: 206,094 SF PERMEABLE PAVER AREA: 10,548 SF LANDSCAPE AREA: 70,126 SF TOTAL PERVIOUS AREA: 80,674 SF DMA 10 (38,140 SF) DMA 11 (124,013 SF) DMA 12 (37,846 SF) DMA 13 (18,140 SF) IHHW DMA 14 (32,434 SF) DMA 15 (24,271 SF) SELF TREATING C8BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - SOUTH ATTACHMENT B Page 304 of 464 2% 12' DRIVE ISLE 12' DRIVE ISLE 7' SW 1.5' GUTTER 12' CONCRETE CHANNEL 1.5' GUTTER 1% 3:1 2%2%2% 12' DRIVE ISLE 12' DRIVE ISLE 7.0' SW 3' V. G. 20' GARAGE 4.5' DW 16' PARKING STALLS 6.5' VEG. SWALE 12" MIN. GUARD RAIL PER LANDSCAPE PLANS 8" CONCRETE WALL 1%2% 2%2% 2%2%2% 20.9' GARAGE 3.3' DW 12' DRIVE ISLE 12' DRIVE ISLE 7' LANDSCAPE 0.5' CURB 0.5' CURB 16' PARKING STALLS (PERMEABLE PAVERS) 12' DRIVE ISLE 12' DRIVE ISLE 18' PARKING STALLS 5.5' SW/ADA RAMP 3' VALLEY GUTTER 1.5' GUTTER 1% 2%2% 20.9' GARAGE3.6' DW 12' DRIVE ISLE 12' DRIVE ISLE 5' SW 1.5' GUTTER 3.5' DW 12' DRIVE AISLE 12' DRIVE AISLE 3.5' DW 6' V-GUTTER 24' GARAGE 24' GARAGE 2%2%1%1% 12' DRIVE AISLE 12' DRIVE AISLE 16' PARKING STALLS 7' SW 3' V-GUTTER 2%2%2%2% 16' PARKING STALLS 7' SW0.67' WALL 11' TURN LANE TYPICAL SECTION G-G: L.O.V.R. BYPASS PRELIMINARY: ACTUAL ROAD SECTION TO BE BASED ON R-VALUE TESTING AND TRAFFIC INDEX DURING DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 11' TURN LANE11' TRAVEL LANE 1' STRIPED MEDIAN 6' LID PLANTING3.5' BENCH R O W R O W 77.5' CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE AC PAVEMENT DEEPENED 6" CURB AND GUTTER 11' TRAVEL LANE 6' LID PLANTING CURB CUTS 12' MULTI-USE PATH 2' SHOULDER AC PAVEMENT DEEPENED 6" CURB AND GUTTER DEEPENED 6" CURB 2' SHOULDER CURB CUTS DEEPENED 6" CURB AND GUTTER 11' TRAVEL LANE SOUTH TYPICAL SECTION H-H: L.O.V.R. BYPASS PRELIMINARY: ACTUAL ROAD SECTION TO BE BASED ON R-VALUE TESTING AND TRAFFIC INDEX DURING DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 11' TRAVEL LANE NORTH 6' LID PLANTING CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE AC PAVEMENT 6' LID PLANTING CURB CUTS 12' MULTI-USE PATH 2' SHOULDER AC PAVEMENT 2' SHOULDER CURB CUTS 2' BENCH 55' 1' STRIPED MEDIAN BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 C9STREET SECTIONS ATTACHMENT B Page 305 of 464 BA S E F L O O D E L E V . = 1 0 4 . 3 ' BA S E F L O O D E L E V . = 1 0 2 ' B A S E F L O O D E L E V . = 1 0 1 . 7 ' B A S E F L O O D E L E V . = 1 0 0 . 4 ' BA S E F L O O D E L E V . = 98. 8 ' B A S E F L O O D E L E V . = 9 7 . 2 ' SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXX XX W W 11 0 1 1 1 1 1 110 10 9 111 112 113 114 11 0 11 0 1 0 9 10 9 111 112 11 3 1 0 8 10 8 10 5 11 0 102102102 103 104 106 107 10 8 10 9 11 1 11 2 11 3 1101 1 1 112 11 3 112 115 114 111 112 110111 105 102103104 106 108 109 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 10 9 99 9 9 101 10 2 10 0 100 105 10 1 1 0 2 1 0 3 104 106 107 108 109 SS SS SS > > > > 50000 108.91 RIM OF SSMH FLOOD ZONE A E SS SS SS SS SS W W W W W 20' CREEK SETBACK RIPARIAN EDGE TOP OF BANK EVA ACCESS RRM SURVEYED DRIP LINE RRM SURVEYED DRIP LINE RRM SURVEYED DRIP LINE 50' SETBACK FROM DRIP LINE 50' SETBACK FROM DRIP LINE 50' SETBACK FROM DRIP LINE R 2 0 0 ' R 2 0 0 ' R 5 0 0 ' R 1 0 0 ' 90 95 88 89 91 92 93 94 96 92 93 92 93 95 93 94 96 90 91 9 2 95 94 93 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;;;;;;;; ;; ;;;;; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 10 0 9 5 91 9 2 93 94 96 FEMA BNDY. FEMA BNDY. L . O . V . R . L.O.V.R. BYPASS IHHW BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 C10AERIAL EXHIBIT - SOUTH ATTACHMENT B Page 306 of 464 TYPICAL SECTION A-A: BYPASS ROAD PRELIMINARY: ACTUAL ROAD SECTION TO BE BASED ON R-VALUE TESTING AND TRAFFIC INDEX DURING DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 11' TURN LANE 11' TURN LANE11' TRAVEL LANE 1' STRIPED MEDIAN 6' LID PLANTING3.5' BENCH R O W R O W 77.5' CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE AC PAVEMENT DEEPENED 6" CURB AND GUTTER 11' TRAVEL LANE 6' LID PLANTING CURB CUTS 12' MULTI-USE PATH 2' SHOULDER AC PAVEMENT DEEPENED 6" CURB AND GUTTER DEEPENED 6" CURB 2' SHOULDER CURB CUTS DEEPENED 6" CURB AND GUTTER SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXX X X X X W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S > > > > > 50000 108.91 RIM OF SSMH 500 111.4 FD CL MO SS SS SS FLOOD Z O N E A E FLOOD W A Y A R E A I N Z O N E A E FLOOD Z O N E X FLOOD Z O N E A E W W W W W W 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK RIPARIAN EDGE TOP OF BANK 20' CITY ORDINANCE SETBACK FEMA BNDY. FEMA BNDY. R 3 7 1 . 5 ' TYPICAL SECTION B-B: BYPASS ROAD PRELIMINARY: ACTUAL ROAD SECTION TO BE BASED ON R-VALUE TESTING AND TRAFFIC INDEX DURING DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 11' TRAVEL LANE SOUTH 11' TRAVEL LANE NORTH 6' LID PLANTING CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE AC PAVEMENT 6' LID PLANTING CURB CUTS 12' MULTI-USE PATH 2' SHOULDER AC PAVEMENT 2' SHOULDER CURB CUTS 2' BENCH 55' 1' STRIPED MEDIAN L.O . V . R . L.O.V . R . B Y P A S S IHHW BROADSTONE VILLAGE REZONE AND GPA PACKAGE 1836-04-CU22 02 JANUARY 2025 C11AERIAL EXHIBIT - SOUTH ATTACHMENT B Page 307 of 464 Page 308 of 464 ATTACHMENT C Page 309 of 464 ATTACHMENT C Page 310 of 464 ATTACHMENT C Page 311 of 464 7,358 VICINITY MAP 0 1: Feet 6,000 Map by: Printed: 10/14/2024 613.2 1,000500 ATTACHMENT C Page 312 of 464 1 GENP-0056-2024, RZ-0055-2024, ANNX-0807-2024 (12500 Los Osos Valley Road, 12501 Los Osos Valley Road, and Hayashi Property) City Council Hearing –April 1, 2025 Applicant – LOVR Properties, TIC Representative – Stephen Peck of Peck Planning and Development 2 1.Review the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Annexation applications for overall consistency with policy direction in the General Plan; and 2.Direct staff to proceed with processing all applications to facilitate the Broadstone Village project (i.e., construction of 208 senior housing units, 201 multifamily units; a bypass road, a Bob Jones Trail extension, and supporting site improvements); and 3.Confirm staff’s recommendation that funding strategies for the construction and maintenance of the bypass road be developed during the review process with the understanding that general fund contributions to its construction would not be provided (associated with the Annexation application); and 4.Provide direction on issue areas related to the overall number of residential units proposed and the possible inclusion of affordable units as part of the project scope (associated with the General Plan Amendment and Rezone applications). 3 ▪Beginning stages of overall review process ▪Project referred to Council for early policy consideration with the General Plan ▪Initiation review intended to: ➢Provide a preliminary overview of the project scope ➢Obtain Council’s authorization on whether to move forward with processing the applications ➢Receive high-level feedback on the identified issue areas and any requested revisions to the scope, if the project moves forward 4 ▪Phased Residential Development ➢409 units (208 senior housing and 201 multifamily units) across two properties along LOVR ➢Bypass road (LOVR Bypass) ➢Realigned extension of the Bob Jones Trail ➢Supporting site improvements ▪General Plan Amendment and Rezone ➢Rezone properties within City limits to the R-4 zone (currently R-1 and R-2 zones) ➢Zone the Hayashi Property (proposed for annexation) to Agriculture (AG) and/or Open Space (OS) ➢Minor adjustments between the C/OS and Residential zones to accurately reflect creek location ➢Update maps in Circulation Element to reflect the LOVR bypass, if Annexation proceeds ▪Annexation ➢Annex the Hayashi Property to facilitate the bypass and trail extension 5 ▪12500 LOVR, adjacent to Los Verdes Park One ▪208 senior housing units (with density bonus) proposed ▪Existing R-2 zone ▪Proposed R-4 zone 6 ▪12501 LOVR, adjacent to Los Verdes Park Two ▪201 multifamily units proposed ▪Existing R-1 zone ▪Proposed R-4 zone 7 ▪Unaddressed 44-acre parcel ▪Outside of City limits ▪Existing agricultural fields ▪Annexation request to facilitate the bypass road and trail extension ▪Agriculture and/or Open Space zone(s) proposed 8 ▪Begin at a new signalized intersection at LOVR ▪Run along east property line ▪Through north part of the Hayashi Property ▪Connect at South Higuera and Buckley intersection ▪Realigned Bob Jones Trail alongside bypass 9 ▪If the bypass and annexation are not supportable, the applicant would pursue a project on only the North and South Sites ▪Revised site plan for South Site with increased total of 240 multifamily units 10 ▪LUE Program 8.12 (LOVR Creekside – Special Focus Area) ➢North and South Sites constrained by flooding potential and limited circulation access ➢Future development: 1.Maintain agricultural designations to the west (over SLO Creek) 2.Require compatibility with adjacent residential areas to the east (Los Verdes Park 1 and 2) 3.Address permanent protection of SLO Creek 4.Accommodate any changes for the LOVR right-of-way and Highway 101 Interchange (traffic relief project completed in 2016) ▪Special Focus Areas ➢Identified areas that require innovative design approaches for development due to complex parameters ▪Project Request ➢Annex Hayashi Property to facilitate LOVR Bypass ➢Construction of bypass to address circulation issues for these sites and the vicinity ➢County not interested in bypass, but supportive of annexation request 11 ▪Annexation as Growth Management Tool ➢Hayashi Property is not specifically identified for annexation in the LUE but is in City’s SOI ➢Per LAFCO, areas in the SOI can be annexed and may be opportunities for shared facilities (e.g., roadway connections) ▪LUE Policy 1.13.3 (Annexation Purpose and Timing) and Policy 1.13.8 (Open Space) ➢City can annex areas for development and permanent open space protection ▪Project Request ➢Annexation is specific to LOVR Bypass and Bob Jones Trail extension ➢All residential development to be on properties within the existing City limits and URL ➢Remaining area of Hayashi Property to be protected as agricultural fields and/or open space ➢Note – Annexation would not be pursued, if the LOVR Bypass is not supportable 12 ▪HE Program 6.13 and Table D-2 (Areas to be Considered for Possible Rezoning) ➢North and South Sites identified for possible rezoning to Medium Density Residential, R -3 zone (based on lot size, configuration, and identified site constraints) ▪HE Goal 8 (Special Housing Needs), particularly Policy 8.1 ➢Provide diverse variety of multifamily housing units that can meet the needs of large families and single parents as well as providing senior housing units ▪Project Request ➢Rezone properties to High Density Residential land use designation, R-4 zone ➢Construct a total of 409 units (208 senior units with density bonus, 201 multifamily units) ➢If project applications are authorized to move forward, the review process may inform changes and potential reductions in the number of units based on environmental review, analysis of requirements to construct and serve these units, etc. 13 ▪CE Table 5 (Transportation Capital Projects) and Appendix D (Summary of CE Projects and Programs) ➢LOVR Bypass identified as new connection to be studied as part of a development project for the LOVR Creekside Area ▪CE Policies 4.1.4 (New Development) and 4.1.6 (Bikeway Development with Road Improvements) ➢Bikeways to be constructed as described in the Active Transportation Plan ➢Bob Jones Trail extension, between LOVR and South Higuera/Buckley intersection, now identified to be Tier 1 project ▪Project Request ➢LOVR Bypass proposed as part of the project to address traffic and circulation impacts related to site development ➢Realigned extension of the Bob Jones Trail along bypass, but other alignments can be evaluated as part of the review process ➢Annexation of Hayashi Property required to facilitate bypass and trail extension 14 ▪COSE Program 8.7.1 (Protect Open Space Resources) ➢Protect open space, including annexing and applying AG and C/OS zoning to private property where appropriate and consistent with General Plan goals and policies ▪Project Request ➢Annexation is specific to facilitating LOVR Bypass and Bob Jones Trail extension with the remaining area of the Hayashi Property to be protected as agricultural fields and/or open space ➢All residential development to be located on properties within the existing City limits and URL 15 ▪Consideration ➢Should the bypass road and trail extension through the Hayashi Property be included as part of the project? ▪Bypass ➢Intended to address access and circulation issues for site development ➢Relieve traffic volume at South Higuera/LOVR intersection ➢Traffic signal at site frontages on LOVR to allow left turns out of the development sites ➢If Annexation is supportable – staff’s recommendation is to not use general fund to contribute to construction of the bypass, and staff would work with the applicant to develop potential funding strategies for construction and maintenance during the review process ▪No Bypass ➢No traffic signal or signalized pedestrian/bicycle crossing at LOVR ➢No left turns out of the development sites ➢Operations at the South Higuera/LOVR intersection would fall below the adopted LOS and queuing standards (with or without the Broadstone project); widening at this intersection needed to mitigate projected operational impacts, which requires significant encroachment into adjacent private properties 16 ▪Consideration ➢Is the R-4 rezoning request supportable? ▪Project Request ➢Rezone both North and South Sites to R-4 (densest residential zone) ➢Note – Both properties identified for possible R-3 rezoning in the HE, and the R-4 zone would allow ~55 additional density units ▪LUE Policy 2.4.3 ➢If processing of these applications is initiated – the subsequent environmental review may inform changes, including reductions, to project scope, if adverse impacts are identified during the review 17 ▪Consideration ➢Should affordable units be required as part of the project? ▪Project Request ➢Project includes a density bonus (senior housing) ➢Exempt from local inclusionary housing requirement ➢Note – R-4 zoning would allow an additional ~55 density units (in comparison to R -3 zoning in the Housing Element) ▪HE Policy 2.4 and Appendix C ➢Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City’s population as allocated in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) ➢Large sites offer best opportunities to encourage affordable housing development ▪Inclusionary Housing Requirement ➢10% for-sale units, 6% for-rent units, in-lieu fee payment 18 ▪If Council directs staff to process these applications, the detailed review process would begin, pending requested feedback on the identified issue areas: ➢If the bypass and trail extension (and Annexation) are supportable, confirm staff’s recommendation that general fund contributions would not be used for the bypass construction and staff would work with the applicant on potential funding strategies ➢Provide direction on whether to proceed with the R-4 zoning request for both sites ➢Provide direction on whether the project is required to provide affordable units ▪Council may also provide staff with direction on any other requested project revisions ▪If the project moves forward, environmental review would be conducted as part of the application process: ➢Flooding ➢Circulation ➢Biological resources ➢Agricultural resources ➢Etc. 19 1.Review the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Annexation applications for overall consistency with policy direction in the General Plan; 2.Direct staff to proceed with processing all applications to facilitate the Broadstone Village project (i.e., construction of 208 senior housing units, 201 multifamily units; a bypass road, a Bob Jones Trail extension, and supporting site improvements); 3.Confirm staff’s recommendation that funding strategies for the construction and maintenance of the bypass road be developed during the review process with the understanding that general fund contributions to its construction would not be provided (associated with the Annexation application); and 4.Provide direction on issue areas related to the overall number of residential units proposed and the possible inclusion of affordable units as part of the project scope (associated with the General Plan Amendment and Rezone applications). 20 21 22 23 24 BROADSTONE VILLAGE PROJECT CITY COUNCIL APRIL 1ST Stephen J. Peck, AICP, Project Planner and Manager •Significant studies completed to date; more to come. •No final design decisions. •The initiation before you tonight starts the next phase of the process, but we are at a “fork” in the road. •Lots of remaining public process, information sessions and review. •Request that City initiate the annexation, GP and Zone changes. Broadstone North (“Annexation” or “No Annexation” Route) •Adjacent to Los Verdes Park I •208 Senior For Sale Apartments •Pool, Courtyard and Recreation •Traffic Signal at LOVR/Bypass •LVP I Access (Optional at Election of LVP II) •Single Story Units Along Border Broadstone South (“Annexation” Route) •Adjacent to Los Verdes Park II •200 For Sale Townhomes •Pool, Courtyard and Recreation •LOVR Bypass and Bob Jones Trail •Traffic Signal at LOVR/Bypass •LVP II Access (Optional at Election of LVP II) •1,500 Trips per Day Broadstone South Alternative (“No Annexation” Route) •No LOVR Bypass •Adjacent to Los Verdes Park II •230 Units (vs 200) •Pool, Courtyard and Recreation •1,800 Trips per Day •No Traffic Signal LOVR Bypass Bob Jones Trail •Divert 3,500 traffic trips away from LOVR/Higuera •Reduce traffic across LVP frontage. •Create an opportunity for a signal. •Eliminate need for disruptive improvements at LOVR/Higuera. •Offer of access to LVP I and LVP II for access to signal (Optional). •Provides second access point for emergency vehicles (and better insurance rating). •Bob Jone Trail would be extended as a Class IV bike path along LOVR, then as a Class I bike path between LOVR and South Higuera. Annexation Area Proposed to Be Annexed Why Annexation? •County Won’t Allow LOVR Bypass or Bob Jones Trail Extension; Considers Those “City” Improvements. •The bypass was found not only to be a desirable element, but a necessary element to address traffic, ped and bicycle operational issues in the vicinity. •City Standards Applied Throughout •FEMA Compliance •City Planning and Zoning •City Design Standards (Road Flood-Proofing) •City Funding Sources •Public Safety •Consistent Road Maintenance •City Traffic Calming Standards (25 mph vs 45 mph); Road Design •City Electeds Represent All Sides of Broadstone and LVP. •Annexation Route Preserves All Options; No Annexation Route Eliminates LOVR Bypass, Traffic Signal, Bob Jones Trail Extension, and Smaller “Project” Option.