HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/20/1997, 1 - A. PD 158-96: APPEALS BY NEIGHBORS OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, ALLOWING A CHANGE IN OCCUPANCY FOR THE BUILDING AT 61 BROAD STREET FROM UNRESTRICTED TO SENIOR HOUSING, AND ALLOWING DEV RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING TO SENIOR OCCUPANCY,
AND ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ASSISTED-CARE FACILITY
(PD 158-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 12, 1997, and
approved amendments to an approved planned development at 61 Broad Street; and
WHEREAS, William McLennan, Florence Tartaglia, Charlotte E. Moskiman, and Jan Scuri
filed appeals of that action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 20, 1997 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration with
mitigation of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning
Commission;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration with mitigation adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts
of the proposed amendment to the planned development, and reflects the independent judgment of
the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby denies the appeals and
upholds the Planning Commission's action approving the amendments based on the following
findings:
Findings:
1. The facilities as designed or modified are suitable for senior occupancy.
2. The project will not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of persons living or
working in the vicinity, because it will provide a variety of living arrangements for elderly
persons, along with suitable amenities, within one area, allowing efficient use of facilities and
assistance to the elderly according to need.
3. Senior housing is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses, because the use, in general, is quiet and easily integrated into a lower-
l^ l/
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 2
density residential neighborhood, and because the use is near shopping and health care
services.
4. The proposal conforms with the general plan, which says that group housing may be permitted
in high-density residential areas, where it is supportive of and compatible with high-density
dwellings.
SECTION 3.The approval is subject to the following mitigation measures and conditions:
Mitigation measures.
1. Mitigation Measure:
The Architectural Review Commission shall evaluate the appropriateness of the new
building's scale (height, bulk and massing) in terms of compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood. The issue of impacts to the view corridors of nearby residents shall also be
considered.
Monitorine Program:
Compatibility issues shall be addressed by the both the Planning Commission and the
Architectural Review Commission with their review of the project. Compliance with the
conditions of both these review bodies shall be overseen by Planning staff during building
permit plan check.
2. Mitieation Measure:
The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping/creek restoration plan along with plans
submitted for final review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. The
plan shall incorporate the recommendations of the botanical survey prepared by V.L.
Holland, Ph.D. dated December 1996 and incorporated into this study be reference. The
plans shall be routed to the City's Resource Manager for review and comment, and will
also require the review and approval of other agencies with regulatory control over work
done in the riparian corridor of Garden Creek, specifically the State Department of Fish
and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Monitoring Program:
The Architectural Review Commission will ultimately approve the landscaping and creek
restoration plan. Community Development Department staff will coordinate with other
regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over plans, review building permit plans to insure
consistency with ARC approvals and provide field inspections to confirm that installation
complies with plans.
3. Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed
soils engineering report needs to be submitted at the time of building permit which
/-42-
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 3
considers special grading and construction techniques necessary to address the potential for
liquefaction. It shall identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation
recommendations to ensure against unstable soil conditions. Grading and building must be
designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report.
Monitoring Program:
The Community Development Department staff will review plans in conjunction with the
soils engineering report through the building permit plan check process.
4. Mitigation Measure:
Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed- at each drain inlet
intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the
creek directly or through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly
maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal.
Monitoring Program:
The Community Development and the Utilities Department staff (Industrial Waste
Coordinator) will review plans for compliance through the building permit plan check
process and subsequent inspections.
5. Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2), all graded surfaces
shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon
any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's
dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of project construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage
of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or
off-site;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the
construction site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
/-/3
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 4
Monitoring Program:
Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Development Department staff
through field inspections during project construction.
6. Mitigation Measure:
In conjunction with required fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems, a graphic annunciator
panel shall be installed to the approval of the Fire Marshall.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire Marshall. -
7. Mitigation Measure:
Traffic control signals shall have emergency preemption devices installed to expedite
emergency access.
Monitoring Prop-ram:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire Marshall.
8. Mitigation Measure:
An emergency vehicle loading area shall be provided for the new assisted living facility.
The loading area shall be located as to minimize noise and glare impacts to adjoining
neighbors and shall not block or otherwise compromise other required parking spaces.
Monitoring Program:
Design of the emergency vehicle loading area shall be reviewed and monitored through the .
review of plans during architectural review and building permit plan check.
9. Mitigation Measure:
Future site development shall incorporate:
* Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
* Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
* Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives for tenant
operational reasons, buildings should be designed to exceed energy conservation standards
in the California Energy Code by 10%.
Monitoring Program:
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 5
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans
submitted for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff.
10. Mitigation Measure:
The developer shall install an oil and grease separator at an appropriate location in the
sewer system to the approval of the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator.
Monitoring Program:
The Utilities Department staff (Industrial Waste Coordinator) will review plans for
compliance through the building permit plan check process and subsequent inspections.
11. Mitigation Measure:
The new assisted care facility and the remodeled building at 61 Broad shall incorporate
facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. A plan for recycling construction waste
shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to building permit
issuance. Construction waste shall be recycled in accordance with this plan.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community
Development Department staff.
12. Mitigation Measure:
All exterior lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto
adjacent properties. The specific design of lighting shall reviewed through the required
architectural review process, with special attention given to the height and type of lighting
fixtures.
Monitoring Program:
Parking lot lighting shall be reviewed and monitored through the review of plans during
architectural review and building permit plan check.
13. Mitigation Measure:
An Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed prior to final
architectural review of the project (Phase I report). In addition, a Subsurface
Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE) will be required for those areas of the site
where excavation is proposed. The report shall note that a qualified archaeologist will be
retained to monitor project grading and trenching activities. If excavations encounter
significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then
construction activities which may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is
determined and appropriate protective measures are approved by the Community
Development Director. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 6
extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified
archaeologist.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans
submitted for architectural review and a building permit by the Community Development
Department staff and subsequent inspections.
14. Mitigation Measure
If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor
should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and-remove the items.
Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this
requirement shall be included on the grading and construction plans for the project.
Monitoring Pro rgr n
Compliance with .this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans
submitted for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff.
Conditions:
1. Occupancy of the complex shall be limited to residents who are 62 years of age or older.
2. A minimum of 180 parking spaces, 9 bicycle spaces, and 9 motorcycle spaces shall be
provided on the site at all times. Bike racks must be installed near the entrance of each
building (two bicycles per rack). Each building shall provide bike lockers for two bicycles or
comparable enclosed and marked spaces, for the use of employees. No charge shall be made
to employees for the use of these lockers.
3. The final design of the assisted care facility must be to the approval of the Architectural
Review Commission.
4. If asphalt beneath the dripline of oaks near the creek is removed during construction,
protective fencing must be installed immediately to protect the dripline area from construction
traffic. No materials or vehicles are to be stored or parked within the dripline of any oak. The
City Arborist must be notified prior to removal of this asphalt.
Upon motion of ,seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 7
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of ,1997.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf Mayor Allen Settle
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
#iom jJeey J gensen
/-/7
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S
ACTION,THEREBY APPROVING A SUBDIVISION OF TWO LOTS INTO THREE,
AT 61 BROAD STREET
(MS 157-96)
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on April 4, 1997,
and approved a subdivision of two lots into three at 61 Broad Street; and
WHEREAS, William McLennan appealed that action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 20, 1997 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Subdivision hearing and action, and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Categorical Exemption from
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as prepared by staff and
reviewed by the Subdivision Hearing Officer;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project is exempt from
CEQA because it is a Minor Land Division in an urbanized area (CEQA Class 15, Section
15315), where all standards are met, and this determination reflects the independent judgment of
the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Categorical Exemption.
SECTION 2. The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby denies the appeals and
upholds the Hearing Officer's action approving the subdivision based on the following findings:
Ywdings:
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements,as conditioned, are consistent with.
the General Plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the High-Density
Residential,with Planned Development (R-4-PD)zone.
3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, as conditioned,are not likely to
cause serious health problems,substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements for
access through,or use of property within,the proposed subdivision.
l�18
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
MS 157-96
61 Broad Street
Page 2
5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed land division is exempt
from environmental review,because it meets all standards(Class 15,Section 15315).
6. The design of the proposed subdivision, including four lots, may not be physically suited to the
construction of another building on proposed lot 1.
SECTION 3.The approval is subject to the following conditions and code requirements:
Conditions:
1. The final map shall show a total of three parcels,with proposed parcel 1 combined with parcel 2 or
4, or otherwise reconfigured so that the property within parcel 1 is part of a lot that contains a
building.
2. All boundary monuments,lot corners and centerline intersections,BC's,EC's,etc.,shall be tied to
the City's control network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the
coordinates shall be submitted with the final map. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk,
containing the appropriate data for use in AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for
Geographic Information system (GIS) purposes, is also required to be submitted to the City
Engineer. Any exceptionto this requirementmust be approved by the City Engineer.
3. The subdivider shall install a City standard handicap ramp at the comer of Ramona and Palomar,
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
4. The final map,public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of
Units(metric system).The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary
(for example, all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations
should be in parenthesis),to the approval of the City Engineer.
5. A tree protection plan and tree preservation bond shall be submitted prior to any further.
development near or adjacent to the creek,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.Any
future development shall not encroach within the dripline of any tree determined to be significant
by the City Arborist.All existing trees are to remain,with the exception of seven palms.No grade
changes are allowed within the dripline of any oaks.If asphalt beneath the dripline of oaks next to
the creek is removed during construction, protective fencing must be installed immediately to
protect the dripline area from construction traffic. No materials or vehicles are to be stored or
parked within the dripline of any oak.The City Arborist must be notified prior to removal of such
asphalt.
6. The developer shall install bicycle racks near the entrance of each building(two bicycles per rack).
Each building shall have bike lockers for two bicycles,or comparable enclosed spaces dedicated to
this use.
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
MS 157-96
61 Broad Street
Page 3
7. The engineer for the project shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so
that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting inrastructure.If it is
discovered that an off-site deficiency exists, the subdivider will be required to mitigate the
deficiency as a part of the overall project.
8. The subdivider must submit an agreement for common parking and access for all lots,along with
recording fees,to the approval of the Community Development Director.
9. The subdivider shall dedicate a six-foot-wide public utility easement and a 10'-wide street tree
easement along all public street frontages,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
10. Any bridging of the creek shall be in compliance with the City's Flood Management Policy Book
(specifically regarding clear-spanning of creeks)and approved by the City Council,Department of
Fish and Game,and Corps of Engineers.
11. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or
removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works, The Community Development Director, Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish
and Game.
12. Density on all parcels must be consistent with City regulations,as approved by the City Council in
its action on the Planned Development appeal.
Code Requirements:
1. The applicant shall submit a parcel map for approval and recordation. The map shall be prepared
by, or under the supervision of, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The parcel
map shall be prepared in accordancewith the Subdivision Map Act and Subdivision Regulations.
2. All parcels shall be served by individual water,sewer and utilities services.
3. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. A water allocation shall be developed for the proposed building on proposed parcel 3. Water
allocations may also need to be developed for parcel 2, if the remodeling results in increased
demand on the water system.The City's Water Conservation Division can help in determining the
needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits.
5. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Both the
Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter serving each
parcel.
�--zo
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
MS 157-96
61 Broad Street
Page 4
6. All buildings shall have oil and sand separators to the satisfaction of the City's Industrial Waste
Coordinator.
7. EPA requirement:A General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit is required for all storm
water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation
results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres,
that are a part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit.A permit is
required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity
Permit,the owner of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed"Notice of
Intent"(NOI)form,with the appropriate fee,to the State Water Board.
Upon motion of ,seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of ,1997.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf Mayor Allen Settle
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i tomXjryj ensen
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY DENYING AMENDMENTS TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
AND DENYING CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING TO SENIOR OCCUPANCY,
AND DENYING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ASSISTED-CARE FACILITY
(PD 158-96)
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 12, 1997, and
approved amendments to an approved planned development at 61 Broad Street; and
WHEREAS, William McLennan, Florence Tartaglia, Charlotte E. Moskiman, and Jan Scuri
filed appeals of that action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 20, 1997 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration with
mitigation of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning
Commission;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
hereby approves the appeals and reverses the Planning Commission's action approving the
amendments,thereby denying the amendments,based on finding that(COUNCIL STATE FINDING)
Upon motion of ,seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of ,1997.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf Mayor Allen Settle
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
PD 158=96
61 Broad Street
Page 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attomey Jeffrey Jorgensen
h Z7
RESOLUTION NO. '(1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S
ACTION,THEREBY DENYING A SUBDIVISION OF TWO LOTS INTO THREE
AT 61 BROAD STREET
(MS 157-96)
WHEREAS,the Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on April 4, 1997, and approved
a subdivision of two lots into three at 61 Broad Street; and
WHEREAS, William McLennan filed an appeal of that action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 20, 1997 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Director's Subdivision hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Categorical Exemption from
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as prepared by staff and
reviewed by the Subdivision Hearing Officer;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
hereby approves the appeal and reverses the Hearing Officer's action approving the subdivision,
thereby denying the subdivision,based on finding that(COUNCIL STATE FINDING)
Upon motion of -,seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of ,1997.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf Mayor Allen Settle
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
MS 157-96
61 Broad Street
Page 2
:APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeffrey Jorgensen
Suggested modified or added conditions
Modification:
2. A minimum of 180 parking spaces, 9 bicycle spaces, and 9 motorcycle spaces shall be
provided on the site at all times. A minimum.of 48 spaces_are required for the project at 61
Broad, 106.spaces are required f6r;55 Broad (The Village),.and. 26 spaces are required for.
The-Heritage: Bike racks must be installed near the entrance of each building (two bicycles
per rack). Each building shall provide bike lockers for two bicycles or comparable enclosed
and marked spaces, for the use of employees. No charge shall be made to employees for the
use of these lockers.
New:
A. This approval allows the following uses:
• 55 and 61 Broad Street: congregate care for seniors
• The Heritage: Assisted-living for seniors
as specified in project plans approved through this planned development
amendment process, and as approved on building plans to be submitted for these
modifications. Any change to the uses or numbers of units will require approval of
another amendment to the planned development or approval of a rezoning to
eliminate the planned development plus whatever process is required for the type of
use proposed.
B. Occupancy of the entire site shall be limited to a maximum of 382 residents. The
owners and managers shall allow the City to verify occupancy of the buildings by
inspection of records or by a visual inspection of the premises. Any inspection shall
be scheduled at a reasonable time of day and shall be preceded by a one-hour notice
to the management. To be sure that future owners will be aware of this restriction,
an agreement must be submitted, for review and approval by the Community
Development Director, acknowledging the requirement and setting out means for
ensuring that operators of all buildings will cooperate to retain occupancy at or
below the limit.
C. Employees shall be required to park in the lot closest to Palomar, and spaces closest
to the buildings shall be designated for visitors and residents, as well as for required
emergency access.
:�
0 0
0 ,wa O
° .j�
r. w ww+a.9O � l
i
-z �t.w ❑ PF
i o m -
R-4 ° mow _ ' C-N ...
MMII 3
10 0
4S6,(w•,O CJS 410 600 404 w49i. 1pr l,0 y q{ 1)O f
BLVD. FOOTHILL
cJ, fo. ra 7cs ftr
rn
...r•
N.• Y.Y l.� Ly,
M,
.w\�. P1W fM�/. •I�
Yi
r • O
R-4 t `•Y
rrr In ra. ..r..
LL
CN
m
o
_ ROU
11
.. . R-4-PD x�"°�" w + A•Ar .,, O O O O
.n ra
RAMONA I DRIVE
I
��. :::'::. l•4 ryk,.v,:.vvv tiv{ti. U yyLL�.f r.,.v
}v �,`. ••'\1 kl:{!}y" AI{:.:Y}t. i jt}'•: '•�'. C'.•}.vwr1wwr: I••.••••lam•••• ti Oic
:F.>.'^.��' '•: '.�\\.•.}Mn••v..y...hvi`}{n{ ..::•.Av�i nO. .'•.�.}•.•• :�^;�� •t
Lu
%
• v \vii' V •'}v\v} :{ •.. v.:.. _
2L > , ��•'+ ;r a� {: MEIN 6G(C�s., MEI
:{4�,v.:v•. }C*: {:;i:'»ilii• •?v f••riC~^. z � :¢ .
Qn\ }\ v i f v1h:: $::l i'?•,k 'Yv}} qC,. ::\\yk ° 1 °
.> `<.
'. r z
0 - O
fi
,r'+M•rCl
�M ;R1-P 0 0 0
= s0 °
y
O
;y_ �� + �k . 'm MURRAY
iJ
0
1
O O O : O
° 1 ° " r�rMUD
o p ° O O
SF-KieANO
DRIVE °
I
VICINITY MAP 55 & 61 BROAD NORTH
PD 15 _
8-96, ARC 158 96
/--:Z 7
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBLSPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEM#4
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: March 12, 1997
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER: PD 158-96
PROJECT ADDRESS: 61 Broad Street
SUBJECT: Amendment to an existing planned development to allow
• A change from unrestricted to senior-only occupancy and building additions including a new two-
level multi-purpose room at 61 Broad Street;
• Construction of a new three-story assisted-care facility in the parking lot facing Broad Street;
• Replacement of existing tennis courts with parking.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the amendments to the planned development, with conditions.
BACKGROUND
Situation.
The applicant wants to amend the existing planned development for the project site to change the
occupancy of the building at 61 Broad Street from unrestricted (all ages allowed) to senior-only
occupancy (one spouse that is 62 years old or older). Most of the anticipated changes to the building
will involve interior modifications, but there will be some minor additions at the entries and a new two-
level recreation, multi-purpose room.
The more significant project component is a new three-level building planned in the parking lot facing
Broad Street to provide a 64-unit assisted care facility. The existing tennis courts located on the site near
Palomar are proposed to be converted to a parking lot.
R-atory:
On January 4, 1965, the City Council approved the preliminary planned development plan and the precise
plan for phase 1, allowing a student housing complex. Precise plans for phases 2 and 3 were approved on
February 7, 1966 and January 6, 1970.
In July 1986 a minor subdivision was approved that split the property into two separate parcels, and the
Planning commission approved an amendment to the planned development to allow a change in
occupancy at 55 Broad Street from students to seniors. An amendment to the final design plan for 55
Broad was approved by the Planning Commission in April 1988.
i�z8
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 55 & 61 Broad Street
Applicant: Morrison I, LLC
Representative: Smith& Company
Zoning: Mgh Density Residential with the Planned Development overlay(R-4-PD)
General Plan: Nigh Density Residential
Environmental Status: Negative Declaration of environmental impact with mitigation measures
was recommended by the Development Review Manager on February 19,
1997.
Project Action Deadline: Not yet certified complete for architectural review.
Site Description
The project site is located on the southwest corner of Ramona Drive and Broad Street. It is composed
of two separate parcels; Parcel A is developed with the apartment complex and associated parking
facilities, known as The Village, and Parcel B is developed with the apartment building and parking lot
called 61 Broad. Old Garden creek flows through the site in an open channel. Surrounding land uses
include the Foothill Plaza Shopping Center to the north, single-family homes to the east and south and.
apartments to the west.
Project Description
61 Broad Village-West)
In conjunction with the change to senior occupancy, the following changes are proposed:
• interior changes to create a total of 59 units (56 one-bedroom units and 3 studios proposed; 53 units
exist);
• new architectural projection and porte-cochere at the main building entry (south side of the existing
structure);
• new parapet and facade treatment at the secondary entry facing the creek (north side of the existing
structure;
• embellishments to the facade including metal grill work, columns and parapet features; and
• new freestanding two-level multi-purpose recreation room with pedestrian bridge to the main
residential building.
New Assisted Care Facility (The Heritage at Garden Geek)
The proposal is to construct a three-level building containing 64 assisted living units. An assisted living
facility has some similar characteristics to, but is not the same thing as a rest home. Such facilities cater
to those desiring some autonomy, but need assistance with one or more activities of daily living such as
l—ZZF
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 3
dressing, eating, personal hygiene, health maintenance, supervision and monitoring of medications, and
transportation. Assisted care residents do not require daily medical or nursing care.
The building footprint is 17,550 square feet with a total floor area of 43,879 square feet. The floor plan
for each level of the new building shows a series of rooms surrounding common facilities such a laundry,
lounges and dining areas. The street elevation of the new building is characterized by a series of roof
planes which steps from one to three levels. Proposed materials include:
• exterior cement plaster for main building surfaces;
• Mission style concrete tile roofing; and
• pre-cast concrete or foam-plaster corbels, trim and details, as well as wood trim and details.
Other project Components
• construction of a new pedestrian bridge with canvas covering for weather protection over Old
Garden Creek linking the secondary entry of the 61 Broad congregate apartments with the Village
site; and
• the conversion of the existing tennis courts located near Palomar to a parking lot.
No exceptions to property development standards are requested as a part of this proposal.
Previous review.
On Friday, February 7, 1997, a Director's subdivision hearing was held to consider a request to create
four parcels from the existing two parcels at the project site which consists of the two apartment
complexes, The Village (55 Broad) and 61 Broad Street. The Hearing Officer continued consideration
of the request to a date uncertain to allow for density issues to be completely resolved with the Planning
Commission before any new lot lines were created.
At the hearing, public testimony from a number of neighbors was taken. Generally, the neighbors
expressed their support for senior housing on the site. However, nearby residents expressed concern
with the scale of the new building in relation to the surrounding neighborhood and stressed the
importance of sufficient on-site parking for all existing and planned facilities.
The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project on March 3, 1997, and continued it with the
comment that the project is supportable, but that the scale and character of the new building intrude too
much into the surrounding neighborhood.
EVALUATION
1. The overall proposal has support. Testimony and comments from the Hearing Officer and
Commissioners at the Administrative and Architectural Review hearings (see "Previous Review",
/-3b
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 4
above) indicates that the proposal to convert the apartments at 61 Broad to senior occupancy and to
add an assisted care facility to the complex is generally supported by neighbors and Commissioners
alike. There are few issues related to the conversion of 61 Broad Street. However, the neighborhood
is concerned about the design, size, and location of the new building, about density, and about the
adequacy of parking for the project. Letters expressing these concerns are attached.
2. Density meets standards. When the project at 55 Broad was converted to senior occupancy in
1986, staff determined (and the Planning Commission concurred) that the use was essentially "group
housing". Although individual apartments have small kitchens, two meals are provided per day in
large dining areas, and most residents choose to have their meals provided there. The project operates
Eke group housing and was therefore defined as such for density calculations.
Density in group housing projects is defined by the number of persons occupying the space. In the R-
4 zone,up to 55 persons per net acre are allowed.
Further, the project is entitled to a density bonus of at least 25%. Section 17.90.030D of the Zoning
Regulations says
When a developer agrees to construct at least fifty (50) percent of the total dwelling units in a
residential project for qualifying senior residents, as defined in Section 51.3 of the Civil Code, the
Director shall grant the developer, upon the developer's request, a density bonus equivalent to an
increase in density of at least twenty-five percent over the density otherwise allowed by the zoning
regulations, and the developer shall be eligible to receive at least one of the development incentives
described in Section 17.90.050.
The City Attorney's office has determined that the project meets the criteria in this section, and
qualifies for a density bonus. With a 25% bonus, the total number of persons allowed to live on the
site increases to
55 +(.25)*55 = 55 + 13.75 =68.75 persons per net acre.
Staff calculated the number of persons likely to live at the site, based on an interpretation of industry
averages for this type facility. The industry norm for married couples living in these facilities is about
eight percent. The Village currently has about 10% married couples. Therefore, about 101/6 of the
one-bedroom units are occupied by two persons, the rest by single persons.
For 61 Broad, staffs calculations are conservatively based on an assumption that 201/o of the one-
bedroom units are occupied by two persons. Calculations for 55 Broad (The Village) assume 50%
double occupancy for two-bedroom apartments and 10% or 20%double-occupancy for one-bedroom
units, based on unit size (one-bedroom units come in "deluxe" and "standard" sizes. "Deluxe" are
assumed to be 20% occupied by two persons.). The assisted care facility (The Heritage) has 64 units,
each to be occupied by one person.
!-3!
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 5
Density Calculations
61 Broad Street:
56 one-bedroom(20%double-occupancy) 11 units @ 2+45 @ 1 67
3 studios(single occupancy) 3 units @ 1 3
TOTAL 61 Broad: 70
55 Broad Street:
45 2-bedroom(50%double occupancy) 23 @ 2+22 @ 1 68
52 1-bedroom(20%double occupancy) 10 @ 2+42 @ 1 62
31 1-bedroom(10%double occupancy) 3 @ 2+28 @ 1 34
TOTAL 55 Broad: 164
The Heritage:
64 unite 64 @ 1 64
The property is currently in two parcels, one containing 55 Broad and the other containing 61 Broad.
However, a parcel map is under consideration at this time, that would divide the property into four
parcels (see attached map showing areas involved). Density is calculated based on the net area of the
lot, minus creeks (the area between the tops of banks).
Density allowed, then, is:
Parcel 2: 61 Broad
Net area: 1.22 acres
Density allowed: 1.22 acres X 68.75= 83.88 =83 persons
Parcel 4: 55 Broad
Net area: 3.38 acres
Density allowed: 3.38 acres X 68.75 persons/net acre=232.38 =232 persons
Parcel 3: The Heritage
Net area: 1.05 acres
Density allowed: 1.05 acres X 68.75 = 72.19=72 persons
Conclusion: The proposed number of units is within the density allowed on the site.
3z
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 6
Alternative calculations: The Planning Commission may not agree that the correct way to calculate
density in this case is for group housing. An alternative method is to calculate based on unit type, as
for apartments. The assisted care facility would still be calculated at the group rate, because the units
contain.very limited kitchens and board is an integral part of assisted care.
In the R4 zone, up to 24 dwelling units per net acre are allowed, where a two-bedroom apartment is
one dwelling unit, a one-bedroom is 0.66 dwelling unit, and a studio 0.5 dwelling unit. With the 25%
density bonus, the maximum number of units per net acre would be 24 + .25 * 24 = 24 + 6 = 30
units per net acre. Using this method, staff calculates:
61 Broad:
Proposed:
56 1-br=56 * 0.66 =36.96
3 studios=3 * 0.5 = 1.50
Total at 61 Broad =36.96+ 1.5 =38.46 dwelling units
Allowed:
. 1.22 acres @ 30 units/acre= 36.6 dwelling units
55 Broad:
Proposed:
45 2-br= 45.00
83 1-br=83 * 0.66= 54.78
Total at 55 Broad =45 + 54.78 =99.78 dwelling units
Allowed:
3.38 acres @ 30 units/acre= 101.40 dwelling units
The Heritage:
Proposed:
64 persons
Allowed:
1.05 acres @ 68.75 persons per net acre=72 persons
Thus only the project at 61 Broad exceeds the density allowed, and that exception is small. The
density bonus provisions require a minimum of 25% bonus. A slightly higher bonus could be
approved by the Director in that case, in accordance with section 17.90.030D, above.
!-33
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 7
Conclusion: The density allowed meets the City's standards.
3. Parking requirement is met. The zoning regulations say(section 17.16.060 n:
Housing occupied exclusively by persons aged 62 or older may provide one-half space per dwelling
unit or one space per four occupants of a group quarters.
The parking calculations were developed using this formula. Additional spaces for guests were
required at the rate of one space per five units, consistent with guest _parking requirements for
apartment projects for any type occupancy. Some citizens have raised a concern that this section of
the zoning regulations requires that occupants be at least 62 years old, whereas residents of this
complex can be as young as 55. In previous hearings on the conversion from student to elderly
housing, the Planning Commission felt that the distinction was irrelevant in this case, and that the
intent of the regulations is being met by using this approach. The parking requirement, then, is
61 Broad:
59 units @ 0.5 spaces per unit = 29.5 spaces
guest/staff parking @ 1/5 units = 11.8 spaces
55 Broad:
128 units @ 0.5/unit = 64.0
guest/staff parking @ 1/5 units = 25.6
The Heritage:
64 units @ one per four beds = 16.0
TOTAL: 146.9= 147 spaces required
A total of 186 spaces are to be provided. The requirement is therefore met.
4. The new building is close to the creek. The City's recently-adopted creek ordinance requires all
buildings to be set back at least 20' from the top of bank or the edge or riparian vegetation,
whichever is greater. The top of creek bank, in this case, closely matches the southerly property line.
No significant riparian vegetation extends over the property line. Two large pine trees do branch over
the existing parking lot, but these trees are not riparian. The building meets the 20' setback
requirement.
A botanical study of the creekside vegetation was made by biologist V.L. Holland (attached). Dr.
Holland's recommendation is that the land south of the new building be revegetated with native
riparian plants. The proposal has been amended to include this revegetation, as part of mitigation
required by the environmental initial study (attached). The Architectural Review Commission has
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 8
requested that this landscape plan be submitted to them as part of the next project submittal. V.L.
Holland and the City's Natural Resources Manager concur that such enhancement will adequately
mitigate any negative impacts from the construction.
5. And a new bridge is proposed. In addition to the two pedestrian and one vehicle bridge over the
creek, the project designers propose a third pedestrian bridge connecting 61 Broad to 55 Broad at the
center of the 61 Broad entrance. The bridge assists the building at 61 Broad in meeting accessibility
requirements, which is especially important for a project of this nature. It also provides more
convenient access from parking areas for residents and guests. Neither V.L. Holland nor the City's
Natural Resources Manager found significant impacts to the creek to result from this new bridge.
6. There have been concerns about building height and massing. The new assisted care building
(see plans)was designed to be 15' from Broad Street (the minimum R4 setback) and with a height of
over 38'. Three stories in height, the building appeared quite massive from the street. The
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the design on March 3 and continued action with
direction to address massing concerns, suggesting stepping the height of the building from the street
to the rear, modifying creek elevations and outdoor use areas, and coordinating the building with
other buildings on the site (see "meeting update", attached). Letters from neighbors (attached)
emphasized the need to modify this building to coordinate better with smaller residential buildings in
the neighborhood.
The designer has made changes to the building design since that time, and has reviewed major
changes with staff. At this time, the proposal is to set the building back farther from the street,
although a small portion of the lowest level would still be at the 15' setback, and to set successive
stories back farther and farther. The third story would be set back over 70' from the street and the
overall height would be reduced to 35', the maximum for the R4 zone. Design changes would
maintain the 64 units the developer feels is necessary for profitability but would have less of an impact
on neighboring property. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide comments to the
ARC on the building design as currently proposed (project revisions are expected to be available at
the meeting), but leave the final design decision to that Commission.
7. The parcel map raises questions. A parcel map to divide the property into four parcels has been
submitted. The Administrative Hearing Officer will act on this map at a later date. Staff finds that
proposed parcel no. 2 does not have adequate access to a public street and does not have adequate
space for parking for that building. The sale of parcel one could compromise the viability of the use of
the building on parcel 2. Therefore, staff supports a modification to the subdivision design to combine
parcels 1 and 2 and therefore form three lots, or otherwise resolve access and parking concerns. The
Planning Commission may wish to make a recommendation to the Hearing Officer on this proposed
lot split.
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 9
ALTERNATIVES
The Commission may approve modifications to the approved planned development, with modifications to
recommended findings or conditions. Unless appealed, the decision would be final.
The Commission may derry amendments. Findings should be made for denial. The project applicants may
appeal a denial or resubmit a revised project at a later date.
The Commission may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The comments received by other City departments are included as attachments to this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve amendments to the planned development, allowing conversion of 61 Broad to senior-occupancy
only and the addition of a facility for assisted care living(The Heritage), based on the following
Findings:
1. The facilities as designed or modified are suitable for senior occupancy.
2. The project will not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of persons living or working
in the vicinity, because it will provide a variety of living arrangements for elderly persons, along with
suitable amenities, within one area, allowing efficient use of facilities and assistance to the elderly
according to need.
3. Senior housing is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land
uses, because the use, in general, is quiet and easily integrated into a lower-density residential
neighborhood, and because the use is near shopping and health care services.
4. The proposal conforms with the genera] plan, which says that group housing may be permitted in
high-density residential areas, where it is supportive of and compatible with high-density dwellings.
and subject to the following
Conditions:
1. Occupancy of the complex shall be limited to residents who are 55 years of age or older.
/— 3tv
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 10
2. A minimum of 180 parking spaces, 9 bicycle spaces, and 9 motorcycle spaces shall be provided on the
site at all times. Bike racks must be installed near the entrance of each building (two bicycles per
rack). Each building shall provide bike lockers for two bicycles or comparable enclosed and marked
spaces, for the use of employees. No charge shall be made to employees for the use of these lockers.
3. The final design of the assisted care facility must be to the approval of the Architectural Review
Commission.
4. If asphalt beneath the dripline of oaks near the creek is removed during construction, protective
fencing must be installed immediately to protect the dripline area from construction traffic. No
materials or vehicles are to be stored or parked within the dripline of any oak. The City Arborist must
be notified prior to removal of this asphalt.
Mogadon measures:
1. Mitigation Measure:
The Planning Commission will need to approve a height variance through the planned
development amendment application for the building to be as tall as it is proposed.
Monitoring Program:
Review of the height exception by the Planning Commission as part of its consideration of the
Planned Development amendment.
2. Mitigation Measure:
The Architectural Review Commission shall evaluate the appropriateness of the new building's
scale (height, bulk and massing) in terms of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
The issue of impacts to the view corridors of nearby residents shall also be considered.
Monitoring Program:
Compatibility issues shall be addressed by the both the Planning Commission and the Architectural
Review Commission with their review of the project. Compliance with the conditions of both
these review bodies shall be overseen by Planning staff during building permit plan check.
3. Mitigation Measure:
The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping/creek restoration plan along with plans
submitted for final review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. The plan shall
incorporate the recommendations of the botanical survey prepared by V.L. Holland, Ph.D. dated
December 1996 and incorporated into this study be reference. The plans shall be routed to the
City's Resource Manager for review and comment, and will also require the review and approval
of other agencies with regulatory control over work done in the riparian corridor of Garden
Creek, specifically the State Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
/--37
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 11
Monitoring Program:
The Architectural Review Commission will ultimately approve the landscaping and creek
restoration plan. Community Development Department staff will coordinate with other regulatory
agencies with jurisdiction over plans, review building permit plans to insure consistency with ARC
approvals and provide field inspections to confirm that installation complies with plans.
4. Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed soils
engineering report needs to be submitted at the time of building permit which considers special
grading and construction techniques necessary to address the potential for liquefaction. It shall
identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation recommendations to ensure against
unstable soil conditions. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance
with the soils engineering report.
Monitoring Program:
The Community Development Department staff will review plans in conjunction with the soils
engineering report through the building permit plan check process.
5. Mitigation Measure:
Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting
runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek directly or
through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient
pollutant removal.
Monitoring Program:
The Community Development and the Utilities Department staff(Industrial Waste Coordinator)
will review plans for compliance through the building permit plan check process and subsequent
inspections.
6. Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2), all graded surfaces shall be
wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining
property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan
and shall remain in effect during all phases of project construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all
active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
/-38
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 12
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or off-site;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the
construction site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
Monitoring Program:
Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Development Department staff through
field inspections during project construction.
7. Mitigation Measure:
In conjunction with required fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems, a graphic annunciator panel
shall be installed to the approval of the Fire Marshall.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire Marshall.
8. Mitigation Measure:
Traffic control signals shall have emergency preemption devices installed to expedite emergency
access.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire Marshall.
9. Mitigation Measure:
An emergency vehicle loading area shall be provided for the new assisted living facility. The
loading area shall be located as to minimize noise and glare impacts to adjoining neighbors and
shall not block or otherwise compromise other required parking spaces.
Monitoring Program:
Design of the emergency vehicle loading area shall be reviewed and monitored through the review
of plans during architectural review and building permit plan check.
10. Mitigation Measure:
Future site development shall incorporate:
1-39
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 13
* Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
* Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
* Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives for tenant operational
reasons, buildings should be designed to exceed energy conservation standards in the California
Energy Code by 10%.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a
building permit by the Community Development Department staff.
11. Mitigation Measure:.
The developer shall install an oil and grease separator at an appropriate location in the sewer
system to the approval of the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator.
_Monitoring Program:
The Utilities Department staff(Industrial Waste Coordinator) will review plans for compliance
through the building permit plan check process and subsequent inspections.
12. Mitigation Measure:
The new assisted care facility shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development
Department staff.
13. Mitigation Measure:
Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto adjacent
properties. The specific design of lighting shall reviewed through the required architectural
review process, with special attention given to the height and type of lighting fixtures.
Monitoring Program:
Parking lot lighting shall be reviewed and monitored through the review of plans during
architectural review and building permit plan check.
14. Mitigation Measure:
An Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed prior to final architectural
/— �O
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 14
review of the project (Phase I report). In addition, a Subsurface Archaeological Resource
Evaluation(SAKE)will be required for those areas of the site where excavation is proposed. The
report shall note that a qualified archaeologist will be retained to monitor project grading and
trenching activities. If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological
resources or cultural materials, then construction activities which may affect them shall cease until
the extent of the resource is determined and appropriate protective measures are approved by the
Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall be notified of
the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified
archaeologist.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for
architectural review and a building permit by the Community Development Department staff and
subsequent inspections.
15. Mitigation Measure
If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be
called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of
artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be
included on the grading and construction plans for the project.
Monitoring Program
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a
building permit by the Community Development Department staff.
Code requirements:
1. Any bridging of the creek must be in compliance with the City's Flood Management Policy Book and
approved by the Director of Public Works, the Corps of Engineers and the State Department of Fish
and Game.
Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or removals,
and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, Corps
of Engineers, and Department of Fish and Game.
2. A tree protection plan and tree preservation bond shall be submitted prior to any further development
near or adjacent to the creek, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Any future
development shall not encroach within the dripline of any tree determined to be significant by the City
Arborist.
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 15
3. A water allocation must be developed for the proposed building on Parcel 3 (The Heritage).
Additional water allocations may be needed for parcels 2 and 4, if changes result in increased demand
on the water system.
4. Water and wastewater impact fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Both the
water and wastewater impact fees are based on the size of the water meter serving each parcel. The
project engineer must submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City
can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If an off-site deficiency
exists, the developer will be required to mitigate the deficiency as part of the overall project.
5. A General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit is required where storm water discharges
associated with a construction activity that results in disturbance of five or more acres, or where the
project is part of a larger common plan of development or sale. Such permits are obtained by
submittal of a completed"Notice of Intent"to the State Water Board, with appropriate fee.
6. A total of five accessible parking stalls must be provided. This parking must be evenly distributed
within the site at the various accessible entries. This number excludes the covered parking located
along the Ramona Street side of the existing building, which does not appear to meet visitor parking
requirements.
Attached:
Vicinity map
Tentative parcel map showing existing development
Project descriptions supplied by the applicant
Parking Calcs Worksheet
Information from applicant: parking, industry norms, number of room types (Village West)
Initial Study ER 158-96
Botanical survey from Dr. V.L. Holland, December 1996
Letter signed by several neighbors dated 2-14-97
Letters from William R McLennan dated 2-27-97, 2-11-97, & 2-5-97
Letter from Flo Tartaglia, dated 2-27-97
Letter from Richard Schmidt dated 3-1-97
Letter from Jan Scuri, undated (received February 26, 1997)
Letter from Helen Alexander dated 3-6-97
Supplied by applicant: definitions of types of living facilities("Levels of Care")
Density calculations
Map showing net areas of lots
ARC meeting update-March 3, 1997
INITIAL STUDY ER 158-96
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
The Village-West and The Heritage at Garden Creek
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo'
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Judith Lautner, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7166
4. Project Location:
61 Broad Street, near Ramona Drive
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Morrison I LLC
555 Ramona Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
6. General Plan Designation:
High-Density Residential
7. Zoning:
R-4-PD
1-4(3
IIII
AIII Otof SAn lues OBISPOY
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
8. Description of the Project:
The City has received an application to amend the existing planned
development for the project site to change the occupancy of the building at
61 Broad Street from unrestricted (all ages allowed) to senior-only
occupancy (one spouse that is 62 years old or older). Most of the
anticipated changes to the building will involve interior modifications, but
there will be some minor additions at the entries and a new two-level
recreation, multi-purpose room.
The other major project component is a new three-level building to provide a
64-unit assisted care facility. The existing tennis courts located on the site
near Palomar are proposed to be converted to a parking lot.
S. Project Entitlements Requested:
The applicant has applied for environmental review, a planned development
amendment and architectural review in order to process the project with the
City. An application for a minor subdivision was also received. The
proposed map would create four parcels and allow each of the existing and
planned buildings to be located on separate lots.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The project site is located on the southwest corner of Ramona Drive and
Broad Street. It is composed of two separate parcels; Parcel A is developed
with the apartment complex known as The Village, and Parcel B is
developed with the apartment building called 61 Broad. Old Garden creek
flows through the site in an open channel. Surrounding land uses include
the Foothill Plaza Shopping Center to the north, single-family homes to the
east and south and apartments to the west.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement):
The State Department of•Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
are required to review and approve plans for a new bridge over the creek and
clearing and erosion repairs to the creek.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
X Land Use and Planning X Biological Resources X Aesthetics
Population and Housing X Energy and Mineral X Cultural Resources
Resources
X Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
X
X Water Noise Mandatory Findings
of Significance
X Air �:.' n' . .
Quality X <€� :x °.•' .<a«,?
Public Services a IM1,1` `� MI.-
1011.111
-
ansp X
X Tr o :,�Y'. 4 s � •af'> k.k."..:• :aiA
Transportation and Utilities and Service ¢� �`. x '°''�;?
Circulation Systems
F] There is no evidence before the Department that the project will -have any potential adverse
effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the
project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
EDThe project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment
of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
Will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be X
prepared.
I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect 0) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially.Significant Impact" or is "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
/-5�y
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or-
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions.or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
gnatur Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the' mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)
(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
/- 4'6
Issues and Supposing Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Les Than No
siguficant Significant significant Impact
ER 158-96 Issues Unless Imps
Page 5 mitigation
Incorporated
1 IAlVp USE ANQxPkgNNING �>3Nonld the proptsal:•'
sal;:»•Coiiflictrth ' Brietal 1o. ....
pan? [esign atlonorz ring}=, "
1,2 X
t C rif iCt»iruith;eppYcable ehvironrrtefltal;'p ariS nr�ipoileles..
ado ed by agencies wrt lurisdictlon over>the p�o�ect2>;. X
� i< ;e arlcotiiipatibl:e 4 t iFt [: tiro :fan}d' i......
, r y, a vicinity v >, X
} ,AffeO agricultural esourges'ror,.gperaitorts je g# lRipacE
cil,salls for farrt2Tarads� or ampactsfront incompatible X.
el > pisrupt >'pK"wdlyldey' he ?png�: . .:::of>>"an a
estabbshi+d >community I#nc)4dtn� "a .IQw income or; X
minor .:'tommunitVlz
General plan policies relevant to the request are discussed in the.following paragraphs:
Housing Element
Goal 1.28: Special Housing Needs. Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for those
with special housing needs.
Policy 1.28.1: The City will encourage housing that meets the special needs of families with children,
single parents, disabled persons, those desiring congregate or co-housing lifestyles, the elderly,
students, and the homeless.
Conclusion
The project is consistent with this policy as it provides congregate housing and a range of housing
choices for the elderly.
Land Use Element (LUE)
Policy 2.2.8, Natural Features: Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities
natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and plants.
Conclusion
The creek corridor will continue to be maintained in an open channel through the site as-an amenity.
Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. See also related discussion under Section 4.,
Water, of this initial study below.
Policy 2.2.9, Parking: Large parking lots should be avoided. Parking lots should be screened from
street views. In general, parking should not be provided between buildings and the street.
Conclusion
The new building providing assisted living housing will be located at the required street yard setback
with parking along the side of it and behind it. Therefore, proposed parking can be adequately
screened from street views. The proposal to located the building, rather than parking lots, closest to
the street is consistent with the policy.
Policy 2.2.10, Compatible Development: Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in
scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living
/— S'7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially IasThan No
Significant Significant SipXli=nt Impad
ER 158-96 Imus Unless Impart
Page 6 rntigation
facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density development.
A. Architectural Character New buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to
neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety.
B. Privacy and Solar Access New buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring
buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook
backyards of adjacent dwellings. (See also the Energy Conservation Element.)
Conclusion
The new proposed assisted care building will have three levels and be 38'4" tall. The maximum height
limitation in the R-4 zone is 35 feet. The new building will be taller -than nearby single-fsmily
residences located directly to the south and east of it. A large building at this location has the
potential to appear out of scale with surrounding buildings and to impact views from these buildings of
Cerro San Luis and Bishop Peak.
Mitigation Measures
1. The Planning Commission will need to approve a height variance through the planned development
amendment application for the building to beas tall as it is proposed.
2. The Architectural Review Commission shall evaluate the appropriateness of the new building's
scale (height, bulk and massing) in terms of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. . The
issue of impacts to the view corridors of nearby residents shall also be considered.
Policy 2.2.11, Site Constraints: Residential developments shall respect site constraints such as
property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, native
vegetation, and significant trees.
Conclusion
The most important natural feature of the site is Old Garden Creek. The creek will continue to be
preserved as an open channel through the site. The existing creek corridor is identified on the Creek
Map (Figure 4) of the Open Space Element as a `perennial creek with degraded riparian corridor, but
able to be restored/repaired." Any changes proposed as part of this project to the improve the quality
of the riparian corridor are consistent with this policy.
Mitigation Measure
3. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping/creek restoration plan along with plans submitted
for final review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. The plan shall incorporate the
recommendations of the botanical survey prepared by V.L. Holland, Ph.D. dated December 1996 and
incorporated into this study by reference. The plans shall be routed to the City's Resource Manager
for review and comment, and will also require the review and approval of other agencies with
regulatory control over work done in the riparian corridor of Old Garden Creek, specifically the State
Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Policy 2.12.12, Residential Project Objectives Residential projects should provide:
A. Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project;
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially .Potentially Lena„ No
significant significant SigriMcant Impact
ER 158-96 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 7 incorporated
B. Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive
light and sunshine;
C. Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with
minimum mechanical support;
D. Pleasant views from and toward the project;
E. Security and safety;
F. Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets;
G. Adequate parking and storage space;
H. Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. (Barrier walls, isolating a
project, are not desirable. Noise mitigation walls may be used only when there is no practicable
alternative. Where walls are used, they should help create an attractive pedestrian, residential setting
through features such as setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk
through them at regular intervals, and planting.)
I. Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along
streets, and entryways facing public walkways.'
J. Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as recommended by the City Fire Department.
Conclusion
Out of the numerous objectives listed above, D. and G. have the most potential to be of concern with
this project. The view issue was briefly discussed under Policy 2.2.10, Compatible Development,
above. The issue with adequate parking will be addressed through Planning Commission review of
the planned development amendment. No further mitigation is necessary.
Policy 2.4.8, High-Density Residential: Development should be primarily attached dwellings in two- or
three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. Other
uses which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such as 2[gM) housing, parks,
schools, and churches, may be permitted. Such development is appropriate near the college campus,
the downtown core, and major concentrations of employment.
Conclusion
The project which provides group housing in a new three-level building is consistent with this policy.
2.8 Group Housing
Policy 2.8.1: Large group housing other than fraternities and sororities, such as retirement homes or
homes for handicapped, should not be located in low-density residential areas. They may be located,
but not concentrated, in medium-density residential areas. They may be concentrated in medium-high
or high-density residential areas, or in suitable commercial or light-industrial areas, where services are
convenient. Each large group housing proposal shall be evaluated through use-permit review.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially Potentially LssThan No
Significant significant sigtificant Impar
ER 158-96 Ism Ude Impact
Page 8 mitigation
Incorporated
Conclusion
The project site is zoned high-density residential (R-4-PD). Therefore, the proposal to concentrate large
group senior housing at this site would be consistent with this policy. Because of the requirement for
approval of planned development amendment by the Planning Commission, a separate use permit -is
not needed.
Open Space Element (Policy OS 3.2.3 B General Plan Diciest)
Enhance creek corridors and their habitat value by: (1) providing an adequate creek setback, (2)
maintaining creek corridors in an essentially natural state, (3) employing creek restoration techniques
where restoration is needed to achieve a natural creek corridor, (4) utilizing riparian vegetation within
creek corridors, and where possible, within creek setback areas, (5) prohibiting the planting of
invasive, non-native plants (such as Vinca maior and Eucalvatus) within creek corridors or creek
setbacks, and (6) avoiding tree removals within creek corridors except when determined appropriate by
the City Arborist.
Conclusion
The new building maintains the minimum 20 foot setback from the top of creek bank. Some paved
areas already exist within the creek setback area. With project development, some of the paved areas
that encroach into the creek setback area will be removed and others will remain. The Planning
Commission may consider exceptions to allow some paved areas to encroach into the required creek
setback areas. The applicant has submitted a botanical survey prepared by V.L. Holland, Ph.D. dated
December 1996 to comply with the requirement contained in the zoning regulations for a biological
survey to accompany creek setback exception requests. Impacts to the riparian corridor were
previously discussed under LUE Policy 2.2.11, Site Constraints, and included the mitigation measure
for review of a landscaping/creek restoration plan by the Architectural Review Commission. Related
issues are also discussed further in Section 7., Biological Resources.
2 POPUEATION=AND:HO:USING:=:Wauldthe:: roposa(:
:.
a� Cumulatively exceed affictat regiotiaP'or localiipopulation
pro�ectton.. X
fuce suiIam=....nualgrawthfrs an area ercher direttiy,orirectlyi thinebro etas in art:zintleveld� dc'€atea`ma�or� tructure�: > >:>:: >;:>:�:>>:::=ar?>?a:;;:»;;:;;;:>:.:;:,;:.::>;_<;;<:::>:�>;:.:;::>::;:places sting housing, 'especiatfx affordable- 1,9,4
Back in 1986, the change in occupancy from student to senior housing was approved for the apartments at
55 Broad Street now known as The Village. At that time, the change was determined not to have a
significant adverse impact on the supply of housing for students citywide. The reasons for that
determination were that .the supply of housing had increased, student preferences had changed (less
demand for off-campus dorms), and Diablo Canyon construction workers who had competed for housing
had left the area.
Since 1986, enrollment at Cal Poly has fluctuated. In 1986, enrollment was about 16,000. It then
increased to 16,500 in 1988 and reached an all-time high level in 1990 of 17,700. Projected enrollment for
the fall of 1997 is 16,500. According to annual reports produced by the City of San Luis Obispo Building
Division, 327 multi-family units have been added to the City's housing supply since 1986. Applying the
average persons per household (2.29) to the new units added, the number of persons that might expect to
/—S6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potcntialiy Potentially Less Than No
Sipnificant Significant Significant impact
ER 158-96 Issues Unless imps
Page 9 mitigation
Incorporated
be residing in these new units could be approximated (749). Subtracting the 50 units lost to student
housing at 61 Broad Street, housing for approximately 700 persons has been added since 1986. Not all of
the new housing would necessarily be available for students. However, it can be assumed that much of it
would. Given projected enrollment, available housing and the fact that students often share single-family
houses that were not considered in estimating the availability of new housing units, the loss of the 51 units
at 61 Broad does not appear to have a significant impact on the availability of housing for students. In
addition, there has been extensive discussion about providing additional housing on campus to alleviate
some of the demand for rental units in the City.
Another important factor to consider in reviewing the impact of the occupancy change, is the need to.
provide housing opportunities for seniors near services and facilities. According to the City's Housing
Element, the percentage of seniors (over 65 years of age) has increased from 11.5% in 1980 to 12.2% in
1990. With the aging of the "Baby Boom" generation and longer life expectancies, the need for suitable
housing and related service for seniors is expected to continue to grow. The conversion of the apartments
at 61 Broad Street, along with the development of the assisted care units.in the proposed new building,'will
help meet demand for new senior housing.
3sGEQLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the ro osal result rn'or ex osepeople to;p:otenttaliitmpacts;involvin .;,,
a) ' EauTt rupture} r a 5 X
W St smtc ground shaking? t ,
6 X
a .: €5.esmTc' rourid€failure>irit udi°
I ns fiquefactrun 6 X
Sertihe;#wo I stinami ar w[t arilc hazaid ,..'..:.:
X
�T Lan.tlslidas"
ar mudilows? 6 X
fI' Ervsrtsrt, changgs ir1 xopographY ar trnst.a sol 6 X
condrtidns from excavaUdn, grading, or fill?
gl Subsrderice of the landx ' ` 6 X
h) Expanstve sods
r) Uni tie"geologrc.o[ phic
ysal eatu6 X
fires� 6 X
The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong
ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in
compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code.
The site lies in an area identified by the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan as being in the "R",
Recent Alluvium, zone which has a high liquefaction risk. As defined in the Seismic Safety Element,
"liquefaction involves a sudden loss in strength of a saturated cohesionless soil (predominantly fine grain
sand) which is caused by shock or strain (such as an earthquake), and results in'a temporary transformation
of the soil to a fluid mass." Liquefying layers near the surface can cause a sinking, "quicksand"-like effect.
At lower levels, liquefying layers can cause a slipping surface for layers above.
Mitigation Measure:
4. Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed soils
engineering report needs to be submitted at the time of building permit which considers special grading and
construction techniques necessary to address the potential for liquefaction. It shall identify the soil profile
on site and provide site preparation recommendations to ensure against unstable soil conditions. Grading
and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report.
4 WATER 1Kould'°ttie:pro"oral result';Tn z.:
........:...:
�I Changes'tn absorption rates, drainage patterns; or the 2 X
ratetand acrtotmt oT=surface'runoff� >,
61 ..Exposurg.of people.orpropt:r'tyta rr5ater related
Issues and Supporting Information Sources soarar potentially Potentially Less 7han No
sigtificant Significant sig mcsnt Impact
ER 158-96 Issues uniew LnPact
mitigation
Page 10 L=mpotated
hdsoazarsucc .......... X
.. .i#sC3isc[ia ge:ifiia>surface:.wale[s
3' 3stufac uriater'yuaLty (e g #eniperature, titssotved j k
>'4.. enOG ..,.,r
xy�
d� j{Cfrariges in{ttie'atttoun �f surface water m any.water
::,::rs)iss:c;`»s:s?:::i3;:i:i>'i.::.,i.::;Y:.'i::..........i... y
i j.] 'S #> X
.e ;Changes m�currents, or the'coursq`nr direaton of water
yk
f1 Cfij$rige (n ttie quart�itX: $ro'urid waters, etttier
X
. th66... 1i`Si3trec :._ >>....
........
<>..:
...f ,..o wttlidrawa[s-`'sior:;#Eiro `s>>;=:]::».;
.. u.gfz:.
tnterceptton ofrt aqutfier by cuts or exeavatrons ar' k X
throggyt�supstantlal lost;of groan$water"rech'arge'j
k
93 alter"ed directtOnor rete 4f flow gf'groundwater�:
){
;h) :Impaets3o::. rountlwater:........ ... ;;;:
;k 9 quattty7 X
Substantial>etiucuon in the amount of groundwater k X
i.;iotherwise:avaifai (e`for=puti)ic::watecsu
Drainage
The project will not significantly increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site since the area of
the site where the new building is proposed is currently a paved parking lot and the new parking area will
be created from the existing concrete tennis courts. Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7 encourages the use of
porous paving, landscaping, or other design elements to reduce surface water runoff and aid in the ability
for surface drainage to percolate effectively into the soil. Through the review of the required architectural
review application, changes to drainage patterns can be adequately evaluated with the grading and
landscaping plans.
The Public Works Department notes that a general construction activity storm water permit will be required
for all storm water discharges associated with construction activity. The Building Division indicates that
storm drain runoff calculations will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.
Most of the site drainage is directed into Old Garden Creek. Any development involving substantial parking
areas or the servicing of vehicles may result in petroleum-contaminated drainage polluting nearby surface
waters. Discharge of any pollutants (e.g. herbicides, pesticides, janitorial cleaning products, and toxic
substances such as motor oil, gasoline, and anti-freeze) or heated water (e.g. from steam cleaning
sidewalks) into a storm water system or directly into surface waters is illegal and subject to enforcement .
action by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. To avoid discharging toxic pollutants and cleaning
products into nearby surface waters, the following mitigation is recommended:
Mitigation Measure
5. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff
as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek directly or through the storm
water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal.
Flooding
The 100-year flood hazard zone storm for Old Garden Creek generally stays within the confines of the creek
channel itself. Two over-bank areas occur on-site near Ramona Drive and Broad Street and are designated
as Flood Zone B on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The proposed assisted care facility complies
with the requirement of the zone to maintain finish floor elevations at least one foot above the 100-year
�-sz
,Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
SiFMCant significant Significant Impact
ER 158-96 Issues Unless Impact
Page 11 mitigation
Incorporated
storm elevation. No further mitigation is necessa
.s.
5.. n;r n.
s�'Fii5i3;:%'i733i..;:....,a5;,5>,..:...;.:•.,,...; ;`..:,.,�: .......
; <,<; jq t5r, n ardror ccntnbute to`arth <
r Exist�tngtor proaertetl �ir'i;uaf�t�vtol`ation!Cbrtip)isnce:> 8,9 X
i.j vu�nmerrta['�ciideliries`{1�. '� 7 i
;>f.5..55�;j)...F;..f.ni;:i�ijjFi�<"i{i:.):,jj3:Q. j;>� ..I:., 'i4::,.,., ;:.3Y...;j.::':�:::;' •
b�, Exgosesensinye5receptors;topolfutarz�ts )'
-
.,,t,.:..,..,. ,mDiremen�;3iiorsture:;off#erriperatyr� or<.causei::
:;..7:,..:. cn:k;:,;k:!@,. ,. .:[[ iiai:.k:::,..'ra ""'iy
3i`i:3ik�35s;i;;-,,.,.ii.,...y..,.. .yE:;^: 5'3 iii:;2'y i'•,''i^.: ,.,.... . .... ..,i;5:;' y
'+k;,.,.: .s,r..5 ..,,i<a:::;^ii'iFY:[;if[i3i� 2:3:Y:.`t�iiS ;3i23'3ipi;3F:: X
d1.„C�eaterotJecfitina"file:adars7 '
Based on consultation with the County. Air Pollution Control District (APCD), the project is below the
minimum thresholds for APCD's significance criteria in terms of both construction and long-term project
impacts. In fact, the project as planned, in conjunction with the existing Village development, incorporates
many of the site design features commonly required as mitigation measures for projects including:
a. bicycle parking.and locker facilities ;
b. on-site food facilities;
c. a van-pool service;
d. provision of a bus stop;
e. improvements, including installed traffic calming modifications on Ramona Drive, which allow for
improved pedestrian access between the site and the neighborhood shopping center.
Conclusion
The project will not have a significant impact on air quality based on established significance thresholds.
However, project construction has the potential to create nuisance issues with nearby residents. Therefore,
staff recommends that the following mitigation be incorporated into the project:
Mitigation Measure
6. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2), all graded surfaces shall .be
wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining,property or
street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in
effect during all phases of project construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active
areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or off-site;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the construction
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sour= Potentially Potentially Iss7haa No
Significant Significant significant Impact
ER 158-96 Lasses Unless Impact
Page 12 mitigation
Incorporated
site; and
Non- otable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
}S_g . ... ><:;:.:•;::..
R IONjCIRCULAT
T.RANSPO TAT . l0111..._,Would the ro osaT Tesult.iny,
�1 Irtcr'ea1.
sed vehicCe>'Erlpsiiraraffrc cgngestion� a 10
X
Hazards tasaety from design fsatures (e�g'shar'p 'i
, rves..... an a oiys; ntersecttoris2:?or:iriEom attble uses
)e g"fiarai a!tut}[y]ment $ , p X
> }< sr.> s i5s n-!,.•» ,�� J= .f> ss J s}is�y 2s
''>Imsu"fficrent'parkin� capa�lt�=an-sate or o�F sAce'it r>" 4> X .
�) ..fazards or @rrre�s for Perdest�laris 4r btcycfi ;s} X
f) Oonf[rctsmewith adopted poBcies supportrrig aR�metroe'>'
Yransportattout, a :.bps turn..... :bicycle
>' Rath, waterborneoq'atrtrafficrmpacts'fe.t X
p.• ,.:
sompatlbiGtY vitfilSans uis..... o'Co
_ P port Eand X
Trio Generation
According to the Trip Generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the
project as proposed will generate fewer vehicle trips per day than the existing development does. The
reason for this is that the daily trip ends for congregate care housing are much lower than for standard
apartment projects. The ITE manual indicates that vehicle ownership levels for congregate care facilities are
generally very low.
The average daily traffic (ADT) for the current project with 53 units is 324 trip ends; the conversion of the
building to 57 congregate care units results in ADT of 122 trip ends. Therefore, the difference between the
two types of occupancies for the same building is 201 trip ends..
ADT for the new assisted care building was calculated using trip generation rates for a nursing home.
Those rates are slightly higher than for congregate care living units even though these residents are in a
physical condition that prevents them from driving. The higher rate can be presumably attributed to the
fact that these types of facilities have larger staffs and the need to accommodate visitors. The ADT for the
new building based on these standards is 166 trip ends.
The ADT for the new assisted care building (166) is less than the savings in ADT (201) created by the .
change in occupancy at 61 Broad Street. Therefore, even with the construction of the new proposed
building, it appears that new trip generation levels will be less than levels associated with existing site
development, and will not result in localized impacts that require mitigation. Cumulative impacts are
addressed by the payment of traffic impact fees established by the Circulation Element and later codified by
ordinance.
Emergency Access
The Fire Department has reviewed submitted project plans and indicates that the applicant will be able to
mitigate existing life safety and fire protection deficiencies. The main issue with site expansion is the
require upgrading of the on-site private fire main system.
Neighbors have expressed concerns with the frequency of emergency vehicles coming to the site for both
safety and compatibility reasons. On-site driveways and parking areas need to be equipped to service
/^S,y
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiany Potentially LASS hon No
sigTic nt significant significant Impact
ER 158-96 I== Unless IMP=
Page 13 mitigation
Incorporated
emergency vehicles. Loading areas to accommodate emergency vehicles need to be provided on-site.
Mitigation Measures
7. In conjunction with required fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems, a .graphic annunciator panel shall be
installed to the approval of the Fire Marshall,
B. Traffic control signals shall have emergency preemption devices installed to .expedite emergency
access.
9. An emergency vehicle loading area shall be provided for the new assisted living facility. The loading
area shall be located as to minimize noise and glare impacts to adjoining neighbors and shall not block or
otherwise compromise other required parking spaces.
On-Site Parking
Through the required planned development amendment and architectural review applications, the project's
parking will be evaluated in terms of its compliance with ordinance standards, efficiency of design and
landscaping. The building design may need to be modified if adequate parking consistent with City
standards cannot be provided. The existing planning review process for the project can adequately evaluate
the p�o'ect's parking needs. No further mitigation measures are necessary.
O.URCES.:;;111fould: -
;ih2: ro os
a}> Eridangeted,>threatenedor'�ar�specles'orYheirhabttats
(tncludirig but not ttmited to ptants�,fish, Insects, 11
antmats or btrds)t , , , i X
b1 Lo'calfy desigrtated'spt?c�es{e' tentage trees)' < :5 , X
cJ Locotty'destgnatednotural comm"ni ies (e "
,.r,.;.
fprest� coastal habitat, etc I?[
X
lllCetlan fiabttat (e g' marsElriparian and vernal pooh 12 X
21:f`: td(ife.d(s ersaf`flr..mt rattOrIl orr dors
Endangered. Threatened or Rare Species
The City's Informational Map Atlas indicates there are no sensitive plant or animal species an the site.
Heritage Trees
There are no heritage trees on the site. Through the architectural review process, any proposals to remove
trees or other significant vegetation will be evaluated. Compensatory Vee planting may be required.
Riparian Habitat
The applicant has submitted a botanical survey prepared by V.L. Holland, Ph.D. dated December 1996 to
comply with the requirement contained in the zoning regulations for a biological survey to accompany creek
setback exception requests. Impacts to the riparian corridor were previously discussed under LUE Policy
2.2.11, Site Constraints, and included the mitigation measure for review of a landscaping/creek restoration
plan by the Architectural Review Commission.
Dr. Holland's report indicates that the section of the creek closest to Broad Street is the least disturbed ad
includes a pure stand of Coast Live Oak. Other sections of the creek have many introduced ornamental
plants that are not native to riparian areas. The report suggests that a minimum of a 20-foot setback along
/_Ss'
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant significant significant Impact
ER 158-96 Issues Unless Impact
Page 14 mitigation
Incorporated
the top of creek bank be maintained and recommends that the setback areas be planted with riparian
vegetation consisting of native, indigenous plants. Mitigation Measure #3 requires the submittal of a creek
restoration plan that is reviewed by the.Architectural review Commission and other agencies with regulatory
control. No further mitigation is necessa
.:.::.::..
aBti;iENERG: s . ::.::.....::.........:..
1�.AND< CNE 3 >;,,.:.<;.:;<.:,:•:<;:<-:< a;:: ::<::<>:>i:.i)i'.:_<::;;=::i;<=:::;ii<,<::.:::..:::::...«»:.:,..:.
J111 RAL RES •;'.
OUREES Would tCie proposal 3 ;..,..•:....
aJ Conffic4Ewt3h.adop;ed energy cotlservatrort pFans?9 2 X
} ,$) :x. J ! '
b1.;it se3nan.? eneviiab[e„ esources fl a;w.aste: f::::artd'< > "
IL1effICl@Rt'Fr1an17eF� ' ;'1#;'it< ,j;";''<;: 3 'k,"3 ' ;°' ' ,a;;: .
2 X
F#���i1t.... `1q'ss't�f avaitabilttSt af3a�t�novvrc'rriirieral° ' `
resoutc�#hat snrould be of futtire;ualue to the�eglorr
>I'';3a::and"t�ie`:'resideiits iofthei>StateT ' i ' '''` ; J > s; '�ti X
The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional
energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design and
orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energy
conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code which establishes energy
conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Buildings proposed as part of this
project must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals through
architectural review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive
means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on
mechanical systems to maintain comfort.
To avoid using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner, the .following standard mitigation is
recommended:
Mitigation Measure
10. Future site development shall incorporate:
Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives for tenant operational reasons,
buildings should be designed to exceed energy conservation standards in the California Energy Code by
10%.
. .f.:..... _..: :..:..:........
. .:,.,........,.....,........:..
RbS.: .Wouldahe': ro osal;anvotve. ....::
aJ
.......> A risk of..... nfaF; zplpsion or release of hazardous
su i'stances IlncTudingr but not Ilmrted tox bllz' S X
pesttcldes, cherntcals'or radtatton�T=
bJ Possible iJ.n'teclerencevtth art emergencyr'esponse pian..,
x or�merg2ricy Pvacuatior> pf�n
X
�� 'TC»K creation of anY fteafth hazardflr,potentat'heaftf
..,.;. >�; ;;_::::.:..
..:.. azar .n... :...:......... ....: ..::�J
X
i[J # Exposure of:.peopfe Ya exrsung sources of`potenttal >.... ...
h'eahh iaza.... X
eJ Increased'fre haiard in areas with flamrrtatife`brusif
ur.i.ees> ' '
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sou= Potentially Potentially LLess"tt= No
SiVO=nt significant Significant Impact
ER 158-96 Issues Wens Impact
Page 15 mitigation
Incotpmated
................:....
SE : Wo
> ':::.......::::.•. „, a P ,tn s, ;
aF Increase m extsttn Horse levels? ,°<5
a} ,Exposure'.p{;people Id""�lnacceptabla" noise lei�els as >> 13
� Luis Opts�pa General Plan C•folse ;
The Noise Contour Map included in the Noise Element shows existing noise levels at the site to be 60
decibels (dB) Ldn and to continue to be at this same level with build-out of the City. The proposed uses are
noise sensitive as designated by the Noise Element. The Noise Element indicates that levels of 60 dB are
generally acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor areas for both residential and nursing
home uses.
Complying noise levels for interior spaces can be achieved through standard building techniques. The site
now and in_the future will be in the "acceptable" category in terms of exterior noise. The proposed
occupancy change at 61 Broad Street will notably improve ambient conditions for nearby residents.
With the development of the new assisted care facility, there will be an increase in intermittent noise
associated with additional trips to the site by emergency vehicles. Mitigation Measure # 9 described in
Section 6., Transportation & Circulation, of this initial study requires that an emergency vehicle loading area
be provided that protects nearby residents from excessive noise and glare. No further mitigation is
necessa
BL1C SER1lICES Would the proposal have an effect upon„or result to a need ftii.:oeiir or aCteed;
Y
overnment services yncany:of„the:following:.areas;;'' °<
....: ............[t.ry:.,vy....:. .....................
,.,.,..a. , :...•.. , ,.....i.. .t.....i,,.:.:..i nava ..•...:•a. ..
a :::::Etre:prosecuon?> ::::::: :...::..<.:: ;::::: ::::;a:;:: :::r:<,;:
...:.................................:.................:y:::::;;.':.:vi,:':.::,;::2:.!':::::
�] =Polrcg:prnteetion�s:::a;s::;>>::;�<:>ri:>:>: >as>::::::::::::::::::::; >:
X
cF Schools?; '
d) MalnterlancesofpubIic facilities, lncludm roads?:...` X
.. .,,..,.
The Fire Department has reviewed the project and noted potential issues and preliminary conditions of
approval. Mitigation Measures # 7 & 8 described above in.Section 6., Transportation & Circulation, of this
initial study requires improvements to upgrade emergency warning and protection systems. No further
mitigation is necessary.
....................................
:.............
:.:........a:..::.:.....,.......,.....:.......................... .
UTILITIES'AND:SERVICE SYSTEMS i would,: ..:....::::................
:...::::::.s the propgsal result to a need for Hent systems or supplies,
substanti :tile�attons to the follovving uttlmes
aJ Power:;oriratural'.gas?'.,.
..
r ......., . a....
b} mrr>urlicattonssystems? , ,
X
; , X
cF Lo.caFiar regional`w4fer treatment or distrbuttorf, ”
facthttes? z
X
d} Sewer ar septtc,tanks7»:
:...... .......:.......:.5:.. X
iStban'water drainages X
tl S4fid wd5te: ispQsah 13 X
Locator€regional 2 X
Sewer
Given that the new building will have large kitchen facilities to provide meals for residents, there is the
potential for concerns with the discharge of greases into the storm water system.
Mitigation Measure
11. The developer shall install an oil and grease separator at an appropriate location in the sewer system to
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially potentially LASS Than No
Significant Sigtificant Significant Impact
ER 158-96 Issues Unless impact
Page 16 mitigation
Incorporated
the approval of the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator.
Storm Drain
See previous discussion under Section 4., Water.
Solid Waste
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians
dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a
threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity
by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by
50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project, consistent
with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated on the
project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials should be
submitted with the building permit application. The project should include facilities for both interior and
exterior recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source
Reduction and Recycling Element.
Mitigation Measure
12. The new assisted care facility shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
Water
The normal level of demand for city water exceeds the safe yield of supplies. The city has responded by
adopting measures to limit the allocation of water to development, so a balance between safe yield and
normal demand can be reached as new water sources are developed. These measures would apply to any
further development or change of use on the site, and will mitigate potential water-use impacts.
13 WFSTHETICS Wouldfhe: ro osatnx
....::..........
:€a)': Affect a'scenrt:vista or st:erttc tl�ghwarl Y 2 X
h} FFavedgrnons#Gablenegati;ve_aest[ietje::effect? `E> 'ff >3. 2
1. : [eate:Ci Fi't.or.. rare7..'...:..'.............:.............:. :.'°",
The new proposed assisted care building will have three levels and be 38'4" tall. The maximum height
limitation in the R-4 zone is 35 feet. The new building will be taller than nearby single-family residences -
located directly to the south and east of R. A large building at this location has the potential to appear out
of scale with surrounding buildings and to impact views from these buildings of Cerro San Luis and Bishop
Peak. As noted in Section 1., Land Use & Planning, of this initial study, for the evaluation of LUE Policy
2.2.10, Compatible Development, Mitigation Measures 1& 2 are included to address compatibility and
aesthetic issues associated with the new building.
The parking lot located off of Broad Street will be reduced in size with development of the new assisted
care facility. Parking spaces will be generally screened from street views given their location between
existing and proposed buildings. However, with project development and upgrades to site features, there is
the potential for glare from parking lot lighting to impact nearby residences.
Mitigation Measure
13. Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto adjacent
properties. The specific design of lighting shall reviewed through the required architectural review process,
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source Potentially Potentially Les Than No
Significant Significant Significant Imartp
ER 158 96 Issue Urdu Impact
Page 17 mitigation
Incorporated
with s ecial attention given.to the height and pe of li htin fixtures.
:7;,MULTUEIAL:RE _.:::..
S.O.URCES W ;<
out th .::... ....:..::�.. ,.. •>:.;:::....:a>::
1�11
IMON
rb Ra i~or[tolog(cat:respurces >> > � `
tr zx
Dtsfti.... chaeofogrcal resource14 X
AfFectj#trsttirioal t2souzces? ;; 14 X
dj' ►favet tFi ptitent�ita;Cause a ip,h"Xs�oal Change wF�ich> ' ,
woud`afFecr`vnlque ethnic cultural vaCues?< , X
>RestncT extstrrrg religious or'sa�red u$ps wrtttn the '> k
The site, along Old Garden Creek, may have hosted Chumash use before European settlement. For that
reason, the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines has identified areas within 200 feet of
top of bank of Old Garden Creek as an "archaeologically sensitive area". This designation requires that the
applicant contract with a certified archaeologist to perform a surface survey and prepare a report of
findings.
Natural changes within the flood plain and soil disturbance from construction after European settlement
have probably removed or damaged any pre-historic or cultural materials associated with past uses at the
site. However, there may be pre-historic or cultural materials under the current surface level of the site.
Mitigation Measures:
14. An Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed prior to final architectural review of
the project (Phase I report). In addition, a Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE) will be
required for those areas of the site where excavation is proposed. The report shall note that a qualified
archaeologist will be retained to monitor project grading and trenching activities. If excavations encounter
significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction
activities which may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and appropriate
protective measures are approved by the Community Development Director. The Community Development
Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by
a qualified archaeologist.
15. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called
in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply
with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and
construction plans for the prosect.
RECREATLON Would the•proposal <
„ .
ai lnt rease the demand for>EteigTiTioFiood orreglonal
parks yr ether ret reatlonaf>factltttes7 X
"T"Affect,e%z-rsnn recreat�onat opporfunittesl :, ... ... X
The change in occupancy at the existing apartments at 61 Broad Street will not increase the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. With the change in occupancy, the applicant
is proposing to add a two-level recreation room for the congregate care apartments. Similarly, the plans for
the new assisted care facility includes activity rooms on each level.
The existing tennis courts located on the Palomar Avenue side of the project will be removed to allow for
expansion of the adjacent parking lot. The tennis courts are in state of disrepair and have not been actively
used for some time. The Planning Commission previously approved the conversion of the tennis courts to
parking with the approval of Planned Development Amendment PD.1369 in 198.8.
:::]6:::MANDA70.R1C::fIND111tG&:bf=SIGNIFICANCE ::.. :. ' t ' >>
�-s-y
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially PoNo
significant Significant siFificant Impact
ER 158-96 Issues Unless Imps
Page 18 mitigation
Incorporated
eSaHe roje'ct;...... p tentlalto:eegcade.;fi`:;>;::;;;_
ea s
3 , taualtty'flf the eovtronme(tt,'substanttally reduce "€ >a
habitat of a fish�r vvtidltfe spe �e35f cause a f'istr'or"'
vvddlif..... laUon to drop belomr self sustatrun�leveCs� ,
.::. .«::v...:)..:::
•,;:;,::,threaten:#oeliminate.a;p[anttor'antma.€.egmrriGnt "' ;«:<;;»s
» tY. , X
, reduce #�e3 numitier or,restrtct'the range of.a r`aSe_or � . ...f. •
• ece 1a'
tl:t>tlr:: h
�:.. �:, ..d .Ir71'2 siJEs:eTtiYtlrla:team .tlGtal]ti<<i:><; .
>:;:):;:::examp,eso.ahe rriajor;;periods".af>✓ahforriiafiiistoi•:'.:oe::<<;a:>>
...::.....
Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all the issue areas
checked in the table on paqe 3.
:iii:> Does ro`ect€Havei= :asaa;
:,.,...,,p....t............:..{..,.,the> �>a enfial;aQ ach eve'sl 1—.1......, <;::::
»......
term;to the disadvantage of tong term >e..... mental>'s i
h.. ..»
In this case, short- and long-term environmental Poals are the same.
>�)> €,DAe's€thap.losesha:Yet:::::.iac:..: : :.;::...::..:::::.:..:.
1 rnp is that are rndlvtduatiy >
limited, Tau[cumulative(y'cortsitlerable� ("Cumu(etivetyf X
: corts�deraffe:...meansaliatitFie incementaleffectssof>aa> i
protect are con$tderabfe when utewed to connection'{ > '
with the effects of the past.grotecfs�the effects of>>
other current proaectsz and the effects of probable
:r:future;p"r:o'ectsl::,.::;;
The impacts identified in this initial study are.in general specific to this project and would not be categorized
as cumulatively significant.
Bhumans.
the protect have enuironr tal,effects which wd1;;;
auCssCantrat adverse effects on human beings, X
:directly:ortidtrectl }>? ' >>? I' Irporation of mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlrer;analysis€-rnaY::beusedarvhere,
.: r ::: a :::..........:...,:>::;:;:»,;:<;:::. :::::.:,..:.......,.
pu suant to tfie #tering, program»1 R, or{other CE_A process, otie or
mora effects have been adequately analyzed r.. an ear..... or Ne�at�ve Aeciaratiort Sactioa' 5063 tui #31.:
(D! I1171:his avase a discussion should identify.the folltiv ih >eterYts { t,:..0..,.;s
a) .;EarlierariaC st useds:adenti $tate vvtiere,the :are ayalable:foi'revrevu;
All analysis of environmental impacts associated with this project were included in this study, rather than
relying on previous analyses.
bI ` °Impacts adequately addressed fderttif.'.i;Wh' h effects frorn tfte'abave checkltstrwena withtri`tFie€"sco'
::.. ... itifY
:.
:::::::s:.:::::::::::::::•:: e.9ua ely:analyzeck::tn:;:art;earlter:adocu. >...>;...>:ti... ,. ..... ... ._...;;:...... ..,......:..,...:) .:.::.;:...:.,:.;>.s:::::.: :::
merit pursuant to aQprca6Ce legat standards, and state::
whether such effects wereaddressed by.rr}itt anon;measues.basec#on.xhee'arlter anal sts f; ">..',,:
Not applicable.
..
gavon measures For effects that are Less xhan Stgnaficant wtth'Mltlgatttln incorporatg ," descFilig;s
the mtti anon measures whtch;viiere incorporated or refiAetl frorrl'the eatGer document and the;,ez eiii to€
g
w rch the..— dr ate=spectfia
Not ap licable.
:Authority Public Resources Eode Sections 210$3 and 210$ ' ' ' > ' >' > � 3
Reference PsJbltc Resources Code 5i:cuons 2�0&O Ic1, 21080 1x'21080 3, �1�82'�, 21"083,'21;Ef83x3x ',
>21093,:3�1.094..21,].5.1:�:5uriorsiiom:v.:Couni :of:Nleadocina';'2�32'�Cal>'A"`�:(3�d>256�f?`98$} georiofffv' >; ';
to
e oa�dof:Su ervis >3ZY
ods 222:GaI�A d<4:33WT
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of SLO Housing Element, September 1994.
2. — City of SLO.General Plan Digest, December 1996.
3. Cal Poly Institutional Studies, "Poly View" 1986-1996.
4. City of SLO Building Division Annual reports.
5. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
6. City of San Luis Obispo Seismic Safety Element, July 1975.
7. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (community Panel 060310 0005 C) dated July 7, 1981.
8. APCD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook", August 1995.
9. City of San Luis Obispo Gradin Regulations, SLO Municipal Code-Section 15.040 X.
10. Tri Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 4' Edition.
11. City of SLO Informational Mao Atlas.
12. Botanical Survey of Old Garden Creek preDared by V.L. Holland, Ph.D., December 1996.
13. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence & Associates;
July 1994.
14. City of SLO Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995.
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
1. Mitigation Measure: The Planning Commission will need to approve a height variance through
the planned development amendment application. for the building to be as
tall as it is proposed.
Monitoring Program: Review of the height exception by the Planning Commission as part of its
consideration of the Planned Development amendment.
2. Mitigation Measure: The Architectural Review Commission shall evaluate the appropriateness
of the new building's scale (height, bulk and massing) in terms of
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The issue of impacts to
the view corridors of nearby residents shall also be considered.
Monitoring Program: Compatibility issues shall be addressed by the both the Planning
Commission and the Architectural Review Commission with their review of
the project. Compliance with the conditions of both these review bodies
shall be overseen by Planning staff during building permit plan check.
3. Mitigation Measure: The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping/creek restoration plan
along with plans submitted for final review and approval .by the
Architectural Review Commission. The plan shall incorporate the
recommendations of the botanical survey prepared by V.L. Holland, Ph.D.
dated December 1996 and incorporated into this study be reference.
The plans shall be routed to the City's Resource Manager for review and
comment, and will also require the review and approval of other agencies
with regulatory control over work done in the riparian corridor of Garden
Creek, specifically the State Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission will ultimately approve the
landscaping and creek restoration plan. Community Development
Department staff will coordinate with other regulatory agencies with
jurisdiction over plans, review building permit plans to insure consistency
with ARC approvals and provide field inspections to confirm that
installation complies with plans.
4. Mitigation Measure: Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety
Element, a detailed soils engineering report needs to be submitted at the
6/
time of building permit which considers special grading and construction
techniques necessary to address the potential for liquefaction. It shall
identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation
recommendations to ensure against unstable soil conditions. Grading and
building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils
engineering report.
Monitorino Program: The Community Development Department staff will review plans in
conjunction with the soils engineering report through the building permit
plan check process.
5. Mitigation Measure: Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each
drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from
run off before it enters the creek directly or through the storm water
system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient
pollutant removal.
Monitoring Program: The Community Development and the Utilities Department staff (Industrial
Waste Coordinator) will review plans for compliance through the building
permit plan check process and subsequent inspections.
6. Mitigation Measure: Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2), all
graded surfaces shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner
as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street. The
following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan
and shall remain in effect during all phases of project construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with
complete coverage of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or
transported onsite or off-site;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in
the vicinity of the construction site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control
work.
Monitoring Program: Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Development
Department staff through field inspections during project construction.
7. Mitigation Measure: In conjunction with required fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems, a graphic
annunciator panel shall be installed to the approval of the Fre Marshall.
Monitoring Proaram: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
detailed plans submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fre
Marshall.
S. Mitigation Measure: Traffic control signals shall have emergency preemption devices installed
to expedite emergency access.
_Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
detailed plans submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fre
Marshall.
�-G z
9. Mitigation Measure: An emergency vehicle loading area shall be provided for the new assisted
riving facility. The loading area shall be located as to minimize noise and
glare impacts to adjoining neighbors and shall not block or otherwise
compromise other required parking spaces.
Monitoring Program: Design of the emergency vehicle loading area shall be reviewed and
monitored through the review of plans during architectural review and
building permit plan check.
10. Mitigation Measure: Future site development shall incorporate:
` Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
' Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
' Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives
for tenant operational reasons, buildings should be designed to exceed
energy conservation standards in the California Energy Code by 10%.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development
Department staff.
11. Mitigation Measure• The developer shall install an oil and grease separator at an appropriate
location in the sewer system to the approval of the City's Industrial Waste
Coordinator.
Monitoring Program: The Utilities Department staff (Industrial. Waste Coordinator) will review
plans for compliance through the building permit plan check process and
subsequent ins ections.
12. Mitigation Measure: The new assisted care facility shall incorporate facilities for interior and
exterior on-site recycling.
Monitorino Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building. permit
primarily by the Communi Development Department staff.
13. Mitigation Measure: Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not
cast glare onto adjacent properties. The specific design of righting shall
reviewed through the required architectural review process, with special
attention given to the height and type of lighting fixtures.
Monitoring Program: Parking lot lighting shall be reviewed and monitored through the review of
tans during architectural review and building permit plan check.
14. Mitigation Measure: An Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed prior to
final architectural review of the project (Phase I report). In addition, a
Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SAKE) will be required for
those areas of the site where excavation is proposed. The report shall
note that a qualified archaeologist will be retained to monitor project
grading and trenching activities. If excavations encounter significant
paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials,
then construction activities which may affect them shall cease until the
extent of the resource is determined and appropriate protective measures
are approved by the Community Development Director. The Community
Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of
discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified
archaeologist.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
plans submitted for architectural review and a building permit by the
Community Development Department staff and subsequent inspections.
15. Mitigation Measure If pre-historic Native American artifacts are . encountered, a Native
American monitor should be called .in to work with the archaeologist to
document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply
with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be
included on the grading and construction plans for the project.
Monitoring Program Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development
Department staff.
The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental
impacts. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the
above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review.
hereby agree to the mitigation measures and monitoring program outlined above.
Applicant Date
„
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 19
AYES: Acting Chairwoman Whittlesey and Commissioners, Kourakis, Ewan, and
Ready
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
REFRAIN: Commissioners Sear, Jeffrey, and Chairman Karleskint
4. 55 and 61 Broad Street: PD/ER 158-96: Review of proposed changes to the site
as an amendment to the existing planned development and review of environmental
determination for senior housing addition. The project includes changing the
occupancy of the apartments at 61 Broad street from primarily student to senior
housing and interior and exterior changes to the building to accommodate the change,
including a multi-purpose room addition. The other major project component is a new
three-level assisted care facility to be located in the parking lot area near Broad Street;
R4-PD Zone, Smith& Company, applicant.
Commissioners Ewan and Ready refrained from participation due topotential conflicts of
interest.
Associate Planner Lautner presented the staff report, recommending the Commission
approve the amendments to the planned development, with conditions.
Commissioner Kourakis clarified the 35' height is allowed by the ordinance. The
Commission doesn't have to consider an exception.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked staff if there was any consideration of limiting hours for
deliveries.
Associate Planner Lautner replied no, not specifically.
The public hearing was opened.
Hamish Marshall, Smith & Company representative, discussed the need for a parcel map.
Currently there is lot line running through the parking lot and they cannot build over an
existing lot line.
Mr. Marshall stated they have asked the city to recognize the whole site as one campus.
They are trying to build a multi-level care facility which would provide independent living-
and assisted-living facilities. They are owner-operators. The idea of building this
development is not to tum it around in 2-3 years and sell it to a larger operator.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 20
Mr. Marshall stated some neighbors have raised a concern about parking. He displayed a
transparency showing the number of employees at The Village and industry norms for
assisted-living facilities. He explained that the industry norm for parking for an assisted
care facility the size of The Heritage is 11 and they are supplying 22.
Mr. Marshall stated at The Village they have 136 residents and 33% have cars. The
number of employees on at any one time is 20. The number of employees who drive is 16.
They only need 65 parking spaces and they're supplying 116.
Mr. Marshall stated the calculation of average parking use from The Village was applied
to the building at 61 Broad St. and they've come up with 32 total parking spaces. They
have 42 parking spaces on Parcel 1.
Mr. Marshall displayed plans for The Heritage. He said they tried to place the building on
proposed Parcel 1 and at the back of The Village. With the needed setbacks from
buildings and creek, to put the building on either site would require that the building be
reduced by approximately 50% and this wouldn't make a feasible project.
Mr. Marshall said his company has tried to respond to comments from the neighbors and
the Architectural Review Commission. There were comments the building was too high,
about parking, and setbacks from the streets and creek. They have worked hard to make
sure the setback from the creek is correct. They actually want to enhance the creek. They
have agreed with the mitigation measures to implement a riparian program to enhance the
creek.
Mr. Marshall stated they had made preliminary design changes and they've made the front
of the building one level, 15' high, with a 15' setback from the Broad Street property line.
Then the building is stepped back into a two-story building with a 28' setback. The
building doesn't reach three stories until 72' back. They have reduced the height from
38'4" to 35'. They are working hard to meet the requests and concerns of the neighbors
and the ARC.
Mr. Marshall stated this project is needed. There are 130 on the waiting list for The
Village. There is nowhere to go for an assisted-living facility in San Luis Obispo. They
are trying to bund a campus that provides people with a place to age in place. To make at
move at 70 years is difficult and moving again at 85 is even more difficult.
Mr. Marshall stated he is asking for approval of the project, subject to the recommended
mitigation measures and conditions, except Condition 3.
� 6�
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 21
In a response to a question from Commissioner Jeffrey, Mr. Marshall stated that at any
one time there would be 1-2 administrators, one housekeeper, a cook, 2-3 prep cooks, a
therapist, and two general assistants on site.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated there are 34 assisted-care facilities in the city, but here is
nothing of this size.
Mr.Marshall stated they are six-bed homes.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated assisted care will require much the same care as a
convalescent home in terms of living skills. The norm for an aide or CNA is about one per
ten or one per 14 patients. Commissioner Jeffrey feels the number of employees is
understated.
Mr. Marshall stated 108 parking spaces is the projected need.. The are providing 186 in
case the demand is over what is expected.
Pat Smith, applicant, displayed a diagram explaining levels of care and stated the facility at
61 Broad St. can handle up to 200 students. The facility at The Village has handled 410
students. They have reduced the population.
Mr. Smith stated the students are impacting the parking lot. The average age in the
facility will be 84 and the average right now is 80. There will not be a lot of drivers in this
population. Even if the projected parking is doubled, they will still provide enough
parking. Their campus will provide senior housing, assisted living, and someday they're
hoping to do an actual skilled nursing facility. They are willing to agree to a condition of
reciprocal parking. This location is convenient for people to walk to the market, drug
store, and bus stop. They can provide the quality of care that is missing in this
community. For the assisted living facility to work, they need to have a minimum of 60
rooms, and they can't fit it anywhere else on the property. They are trying to coordinate
with the neighbors. The property is in the highest zone allowed in the city. He expressed a
concern about the ARC dictating their direction, without the ability to come back to the
Commission or Council.
Mr. Smith stated the Commission submitted a petition signed by 140 persons in favor of
the project. He also gave the Commission a letter signed by supporters who were angry
because they could not attend the meeting because the item was placed late on the agenda.
Mr. Smith stated the parcel map is basically a means to obtain financing. They would like
to achieve a fourth parcel so they can continue to plan and move forward with the final
phase of the project. They've had a meeting at the property and invited the neighbors.
Commissioner Kourakis asked how Mr. Smith would change Condition 3.
r-67
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 22
Mr. Smith stated if they cannot accept the ARC's action, they would like to be able to
come back Commission or Council without stopping the processing of the project.
Associate Planner Lautner stated applicants have a right to appeal an ARC decision to the
Council.
Mr. Smith the youngest resident they've had was 57. The average age is in the 80s.
Commissioner Whittlesey stated if the ages are lowered, more cars could possibly be used.
Mr. Smith stated they will stay with 62 years as a minimum.
Associate Planner Lautner stated the planned development approval recommendation
states the minimum age as 55. There should be some allowances made for special
circumstances for younger spouses of those who qualify for this facility.
Bill McClennan, 706 Meinecke, distributed a handout to the Commission. He stated
everybody agrees this is a good project. The scale, size, and parking is what the neighbors
are concerned about. The ARC had extreme problems with this project and they didn't
ask for just minor alterations.
Mr. McClennan stated to get the parking reductions for senior housing, the project needs
to comply with section 17.16.060 J which says the housing has to be exclusively occupied
by persons aged 62 or older. There is no exception for spouses or younger ages. These
rules must be followed. The normal requirement for a boarding house would be 442
spaces. This is not an insignificant concession and there has to be compliance with the age
requirement. There is no parking added for staff in the calculations for The Heritage.
Section 17.20.020 addresses density bonuses and the code makes sense, but is being
interpreted differently. Group housing and density requires an occupancy limit. A ceiling
is needed. The occupancy limit shall reflect habitable space within buildings. If two
people are put in each apartment, you come out with persons per acre grossly exceeding
the calculation given to the Commission. We don't have any guarantees and we don't
know if this project will be stuffed. He wanted to see appropriate maximum occupancy
limits are set. Mr. McClennan said a planned development specifically lays out what you
have to do to qualify for the 25% density bonus. To get this you need a detailed statement
from the applicant and we don't have one. Planned developments are special to the
community and have to provide benefits. That's what important here. Desire can't
override the other concerns that must be met in code.
Mr. McClennan stated there have been a lot of promises and nothing has been specifically
included in the limits for this project. He would like designated parking and the two-hour
limit left on Meinecke and Broad.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 23
Commissioner Senn asked Mr. McClennan his specific objections.
Mr. McClennan said the applicant should follow the specific procedures outlined in the
planned development density bonus section He feels the age should be set according to
code. An occupancy limit must be set at this site. Maximum occupancy limits protect us
all.
Bob Rowntree, city resident, walked over this afternoon to the parking lot and counted
125 vehicles. He stated it may be an industry figure that half of the employees don't drive,
but that's because these facilities are often in large urban areas where there is public
transportation. This facility will operate 24 hours. Because of overlapping shifts, parking
will be increased. Mr. Rowntree feels the number of visitor spaces is unreasonable. A
practical figure is one space per bed. There are concerns about emergency response
vehicles. Mitigation Measure 8 requires control of the traffic lights: The present access
for emergency vehicles to the Village is overwhelmingly down Meinecke. There will be a
higher frequency of emergency vehicles.
Danrell Goo, applicants' representative, stated they have been on the site numerous times
surveying the site. The parking now is mostly students. When this project is built, the
parking lot will no longer be needed because the density will drop. The noise level will
also drop for the neighbors.
Greg Stafford, 672 Serrano, #6, stated his condo overlooks the swimming pool. He's
Even in this condo for 19 years. He is grateful for this project. He won't have to see the
kids fighting and can't imagine the seniors having fisticuffs like he's witnessed for the last
19 years. He won't miss the squealing of tires at all hours. What he's experienced is
almost beyond belief. His name is on records scores of times over the years for calling the
police. This won't happen if the seniors take over. He rarely hears sirens for emergency
vehicles at The Village. The building has been stepped back and it's a creative way of
handling the mass issue. He's supportive of this project and encourages approval.
James Barlow, 544 Princeton, stated he's been in town 45 years. His wife's mother'is a
resident of The Village. She will need assisted-health care and there is no place in this
area to get it. Their friends have gone to Oregon to find a place that has this type of
facility. This facility has been needed for a long time because we have a lot of retired
people in this town. He hopes this is approved.
Florence Tartaglia, 70 Broad, said we do need a facility like this. However, she will lose
her view. She's lived here for 47 years and this massive, huge building will obliterate her
view. She has lived with the student problem. This facility should be compatible with any
nearby, lower-density development. New buildings should respect existing buildings in
terms of size and spacing and variety and should respect the privacy of neighboring
1-49
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 24
buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multi-story buildings may overlook
adjacent dwellings. This huge building in front of her house is not welcome. There will be
a parking disaster created. These facilities usually have more than one occupant per room.
This project can be smaller and still be viable. The price is usually over$3,000 per month.
This is big business. She wonders what will happen with the parking when the
convalescent home finally opens. This area will become more congested.
Jan Scuri, 64 Broad St. also representing her mother, ho lives at 69 Broad, stated her
mother has lived here for 23 years and is 79 and can't attend the hearing. She feels she's
before the Commission because some developers bought some really beautiful land that
has a creek, trees, views, and an existing building. Her parents bought this land for the
same features. If this building goes in, these features will be gone. .People should be
entitled to build on their land, but they have to consider of the neighborhood. This
neighborhood has been established for 30 years. They've endured all the problems and this
project will create more. She stated 10 days ago the waiting list for the Village was 70
and tonight the applicants stated it's 130. She doesn't believe the applicants are telling the
truth. The Ramona side of the property would be a better location if anything is going to
be built. She is a Hospice volunteer and visits these facilities everyday and there is never
any parking.
Charlotte Moskiman, 85 Broad St., has lived on Broad for 45 years. She is scared by
what she hears about this project because it's so massive. It's practically next door to her.
This project is too massive and she doesn't want to have to look at it.
Mr. Marshall stated they aren't coming into this project just as developers thinking this is a
great idea. They've researched and spent time and money over the last 12 months. They
are also involved in Santa Barbara and Phoenix. The proposed design of the building, the
placement, the open space were well researched. The concern that there will be two
people in every apartment is not justified. Even the city's calculations for parking indicate,
they are 40 spaces over parked.
Mr. Smith stated the area proposed to be built on is slightly below street level. They will
not cut off any hilltop views. The height will not exceed the tree heights currently mi the
creek area. The building was stepped back to lower the impact. They are trying to
mitigate the problems and be a good neighbor.
The public hearing was closed.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS:
Commissioner Kourakis asked staff to comment on Mr. McClennan's parking calculations.
/_ 70
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 25
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated the density bonus section cited by Mr. McClennan
doesn't apply. She cited, Section 17.90.030 D of the Zoning Regulations. If they could
have met the planned development findings, they probably could have gotten a 25%
bonus plus the 25% affordable bonus. She feels comfortable with the density calculations
provided by staff.
Commissioner Senn is hearing the developer say by having four separate parcels, he's got
financial flexibility in the future. He asked staff if we would accomplish for the city what
they're trying to accomplish if there were some conditions or language in the parcel map
which became recorded and essentially placed restrictions on the last parcel.
Associate Planner Lautner stated reciprocal parking agreements can be recorded.
Commissioner Kourakis stated, in response to a point in Mr. McClennan's letter, the
Commission doesn't require assigned parking for any other use in the city. The parking
calculations include employee parking. She doesn't know how a cap can be placed on the
number of cars owned by occupants. Setting parking counts include some allowance for
visitors. A two-hour parking limits on Broad St. is beyond what the Commission is can
do. The ARC will look at and requires landscaping. The applicant has adjusted the
height. She supported the project.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated this is a unique project for this city and county. He suggested
that maybe a parking calculation for another use could have been used for a comparison,
such as boarding houses. He questioned the parking calculations because the formula
doesn't apply here. The estimated number of employees doesn't seem accurate.
Commissioner Kourakis stated they are meeting the city requirements. The city
requirements aren't changed from project to project.
Commissioner Jeffrey wondered if it would be possible to institute mitigation measures
that can be used down the road if the parking is inadequate.
Commissioner Senn stated if there becomes a parking problem on site, the first person
who's going to know is the operator of the project. The Commission is going by city
guidelines and staff analysis. The applicant can establish reasonable parking rules like
other businesses.
Commission Jeffrey stated if the capacity is understated, there is a problem.
Commissioner Whittlesey suggested further research on parking at Las Brisas, for
example.
/-7/
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 26
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated the Commission needs to focus on a formula or
model existing in our zoning code. A model can't be created just for this project.
Commissioner Jeffrey feels this is an excellent project and is needed in the city. His only
concern is the parking.
Commissioner Kourakis moved to approve amendments to the planned development,
allowing conversion of 61 Broad St. to senior occupancy only and the addition of a facility
for assisted care living (The Heritage), with modifications to conditions and mitigation
measures recommended by staff, to change the minimum age of residents to 62, to require
that all exterior (not just parking lot) lighting be designed to eliminate glare, to require
interior and exterior recycling facilities in existing building to be remodeled and to require
recycling of construction waste, and with the elimination of proposed mitigation measure
no. 1 because it is no longer relevant. The commission also recommended approval of the
parcel map, dividing the site into four parcels, with conditions to assure that the project's
viability is not compromised by the sale of any of the parcels. Commissioner Senn
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Whittlesey expressed concern regarding the hours of deliveries to the new
facility.
Commissioner Senn stated we have an ordinance which speaks to this issue.
AYES: Commissioners Kouralas, Senn, Whittlesey, Jeffrey, and, Chairman
Karleskint
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
REFRAIN: Commissioners Ewan and Ready
Commissioner Senn moved to recommend to the Hearing Officer that the map be
approved with four parcels, subject to conditions requiring reciprocal access and parking
easements for all parcels. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis.
AYES: Commissioners Senn, Kourakis, Jeffrey, and Chairman Karleskint
NOES: Commissioner Whittlesey
ABSTAIN: None
REFRAIN: Commissioners Ewan and Ready
7a
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 27
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
5. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Director Jonas presented the agenda forecast for the meeting of March 28.
6. Commission:
Chairman Karleskint reminded the Commission about the Advisory Body Dinner on
Friday.
ADJOURNED at 1:10 am. to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, scheduled
for March 28, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the City/County Library, 995 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California.
Respectfully submitted,
Leaha K. Magee
Recording Secretary
1-73
a
DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY APRIL 4, 1997
1. 55 and 61 Broad Street: Minor Subdivision No. MS 157-97 (SLO 97-157);
Consideration of a tentative parcel map creating four lots from two lots; R-4-PD
zone; Smith and Company, subdivider. (Continued from February 7, 1997).
Ron Whisenand explained that this item was heard at a lengthy meeting on February
7' and continued to this date. He further noted that this hearing is not to decide the
architectural style of any buildings that may either be remodeled or constructed on the
site; this is not an appeal of the Planning Commission's action to decide the number of
parking spaces, the planned development issues or the density issues. He clarified that
this hearing is to decide the subdivision of the property only—to create individual
parcels. He asked that comments be focused on subdivision issues only since he
cannot overrule the Planning Commission and their determination on density or parking,
nor can he predetermine what the Council will do on the project which is currently on
appeal and will be heard on April 15l.
Judy Lautner presented the staff report, noting the request is to divide two parcels into
four parcels and describing the configuration of the proposed new parcels. She
explained that the request meets all standards for size, length, width, and lot access,
as required by the Subdivision Regulations, with minor problems regarding access to
parcel 2. If the request is approved, Ms. Lautner noted that existing reciprocal parking
agreements and access agreements will need to be modified.
Ms. Lautner indicated that the area of concern for this project is with parcel 1 which will
accommodate the tennis courts and future parking. The concern is that if the parcel is
created in the proposed location, development rights would be automatic, and the City's
overview in that case would simply be the nature of the development (how big or what it
would look like). To retain some options since the rest of the site will be fully developed
if the PD is approved by the Council, she recommended that parcel 1 be combined with
either parcel 2 or parcel 4, or reconfigured so that it is a part of another parcel that
already has a building on it and would therefore not automatically have the right to
future development.
She recommended approval of the parcel map, based on findings and subject to
conditions which Ms. Lautner outlined.
Ron Whisenand asked if the subdivision map were approved creating three parcels
rather than four, would there be anything the Council could do that would affect where
the lots would be located?
/-740(
Administrative Hearing
April 4, 1997
Page 2
Ms. Lautner responded that the Council will be looking at parking requirements and
density. Parking is proposed to be shared, but density is usually not shared.
The public hearing was opened.
Hanish Marshall, subdivider's representative, spoke in support of the request. He noted
that the Planning Commission has recommended that the four parcels be approved
subject to reciprocal parking rights being given on all four parcels. The applicant has
agreed to this. Mr. Marshall did not support the idea of a 3-parcel subdivision, and
asked for approval of four lots.
Mr. Marshall strongly objected to recommended condition 1, which would create only
three. parcels, since density and parking requirements would be met_with the 4-lot
subdivision.
He asked about condition 3 which would require installation of a city-standard handicap
ramp at the comer of Ramona and Palomar.
Ms. Lautner explained that a typical requirement for developments is to upgrade
handicap ramps in the city, and all developments that look like they will need them are
required to do so.
He also asked about condition 8 requiring submittal of an agreement for common
parking access for all lots.
Darrell Goo, John Wallace and Associates, also representing the subdivider, spoke in
support of the request He felt that if the calculations regarding the parking and
density show the requirements are being met, four parcels should be allowed. If future
development for parcel 1 goes forward, a development plan for that parcel would have
to be submitted for review and approval by planning staff, and another density study
would be done at that time.
Bill McLennan, 706 Meinecke Street, said that parking is in dispute but suggested a
condition that Parcel 3 be self contained. He expressed his main concern is that Parcel
3, when completed, will be a free-standing and sellable unit. If it is over density and
under parked, that unit may be utilized differently that how it is currently proposed. He
had concerns with the size of the studio apartments as they relate to density and asked
for the dimensions. He also had questions on density calculations.
Mr. Marshall clarified that the studio units would range from 300 to 378 square feet.
The City's maximum is 450 square feet.
/�73'
Administrative Hearing
April 4, 1997
Page 3
Mr. McLennan explained his concern with a 3-story, 64-unit building with 16 parking
spaces being approved and subject to individual sale.
Mr..Whisenand explained that reciprocal parking and access easements are common.
The rights run with the land. If parcel 3 were sold to someone else, the rights for the
parking and access across adjoining lots would not be separated —they would still exist
and run with the title.
Judy Lautner clarified that when the calculations were made originally, she started with
base assumptions but the ultimate recommendation is to add 33 spaces to the total
number for all of the parcels. It is not intended to mean that 16 spaces is all that is
required for this use, rather that a total of 180 spaces is required for the entire site and
any of the uses can use any of the spaces.
Mr. McLennan asked if Parcel 3 is purchased, can they sell or deed away the easement
rights, and if so, what recourse is there?
Ms. Lautner explained that it would require City approval for that to occur.
Mr. McLennan asked why the Lot Line Adjustment procedure was not used in this
case. Mr. Whisenand responded that the Lot Line Adjustment procedure s not allowed
in cases where additional parcels are being created. Since the lot line inappropriately
goes through the proposed new building, if the two parcels were to remain, the lot line
could be moved by this process to accommodate the new building. However, the
hearing today is to decide whether or not the parcel map to create four lots should be
approved.
Florence Tartaglia, 70 N. Broad Street, had concerns with the reciprocal parking
problem if the property were to be sold. She also feared there would be more traffic at
the Broad Street entrance than currently exists.
Charlotte Moskiman, 85 N. Broad Street, also had concerns with the increased traffic on
Broad Street and the potential for more parking to occur on the street.
Marti Reed, 74 N. Broad Street, asked if there will be a driveway from Broad Street to
get to the actual parking on Ramona Drive or will people enter from Ramona Drive?
She asked about the potential for a service entrance only off Broad Street.
Judy Lautner responded that access will be on Ramona Drive for spaces in the tennis
court site.
/--76
Administrative Hearing
April 4, 1997
Page 4
Darrell Goo said there are no plans for a service entrance—that cars can enter from
Broad Street (one way) and exit from Ramona Drive. There is no entry on Ramona
Drive to that parking area.
Helen Alexander, 82 Broad Street, had concerns with parking. She was concerned that
staffing requirements will cause additional parking problems.
Bill McLennan asked that other than for a sale, is there a reason for the lot split? Ron
Whisenand noted the Subdivision Map Act calls a subdivision ... "for sale, lease or
financing ..." and in order to remodel this building and construct new buildings, the
applicant is proposing to have these parcels separated out but still maintain ownership
and control. However, future sale is possible, but he felt financing was the driving force
of the subdivision.
The public hearing was closed.
Ron Whisenand reiterated that this is a subdivision hearing only, and that other
hearings will be held to address the other issues. He said there is no development plan
for parcel 1 other than a parking lot which is needed to provide parking for the overall
campus. He explained his concern regarding the 4t' parcel is the.creation of a parcel
with potential for development. He said he would feel comfortable with the subdivision
restricted to three lots, and could support a 4t' lot if, after development of parcels 1,2
and 3 and the traffic and parking situations have been experienced and evaluated and
there is a determination that there is excess parking.
Ron Whisenand approved the subdivision, based on the following findings and subject
to the following conditions and code requirements.
Findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements, as conditioned, are
consistent with the General Plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the
High-Density Residential,with Planned Development (R-4-PD)zone.
3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, as conditioned, are
not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. .
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements for access through, or use of property within,the proposed subdivision.
/_77
Administrative Hearing
April 4, 1997
Page 5
5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed land division
is exempt from environmental review, because it meets all standards (Class 15,
Section 15315).
6. The design of the proposed subdivision, including four lots, may not be physically
suited to the construction of another building on proposed lot 1.
Conditions:
1. The final map shall show a total of three parcels, with proposed parcel 1 combined
with parcel 2 or 4, or otherwise reconfigured so that the property within parcel 1 is part
of a lot that contains a building.
2. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc.,
shall be tied to the City's control network. At least two control points shall be used and
a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data for use in AutoCAD (Digital
Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information system (GIS) purposes, is also
required to be submitted to the City Engineer. Any exception to this requirement must
be approved by the City Engineer.
3. The subdivider shall install a City standard handicap ramp at the comer of Ramona
and Palomar,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
4. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International
System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the
final map where necessary (for example, all record data shall be entered on the map
in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis),to the approval of the
City Engineer.
5. A tree protection plan and tree preservation bond shall be submitted prior to any
further development near or adjacent to the creek, to the satisfaction of the Director of .
Public Works. Any future development shall not encroach within the dripline.of any
tree determined to be significant by the City Arborist. All existing trees are to remain,
with the exception of seven palms. No grade changes are allowed within the dripline
of any oaks. If asphalt beneath the dripline of oaks next to the creek is removed during
construction, protective fencing must be installed immediately to protect the dripline
area from construction traffic. No materials or vehicles are to be stored or parked
within the dripline of any oak. The City Arborist must be notified prior to removal of
such asphalt.
Administrative Hearing
April 4, 1997
Page 6
6. The developer shall install bicycle racks near the entrance of each building (two
bicycles per rack). Each building shall have bike lockers for two bicycles, or
comparable enclosed spaces dedicated to this use.
7. The engineer for the project shall submit water demand and wastewater generation
calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the
supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an off-site deficiency exists, the
subdividerwill be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project.
8. The subdivider must submit an agreement for common parking and access for all lots,
along with recording fees, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
9. The subdivider shall dedicate a six-foot-wide public utility easement and a 10'-wide
street tree easement along all public street frontages, to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Director.
10.Any bridging of the creek shall be in compliance with the City's Flood Management
Policy Book (specifically regarding clear-spanning of creeks) and approved by the City
Council, Department of Fish and Game, and Corps of Engineers.
11.Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree
pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works, The Community Development Director, Corps of
Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game.
12. Density on all parcels must be consistent with City regulations, as approved by the
City Council in its action on the Planned Development appeal.
Code requirements:
1. The applicant shall submit a parcel map for approval and recordation. The map shall
be prepared by, or under the supervision of, a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor. The parcel map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision
Map Act and Subdivision Regulations.
2. All parcels shall be served by individual water, sewer and utilities services.
3. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
1- 737
Administrative Hearing
April 4, 1997
Page 7
4. A water allocation shall be developed for the proposed building on proposed parcel 3.
Water allocations may also need to be developed for parcel 2, if the remodeling
results in increased demand on the water system. The City's Water Conservation
Division can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of
retrofits.
5. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are
issued. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the
water meter serving each parcel.
6. All buildings shall have oil and sand separators to the satisfaction of the City's
Industrial Waste Coordinator.
7. EPA requirement:A General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit is required for
all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing,
grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water
discharges of less than five acres, that are a part of a larger common plan of
development or sale, also require a permit. A permit is required until the construction
is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner of
land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent"
(NOI)form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board.
Ron Whisenand explained that his decision can be appealed to the City Council by any
person aggrieved by the decision. Any appeal must be received within 10 days from
the date of the action.
/-80
DIRECTOR'S ACTION NO. 97-04
AN ACTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE
MAP FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. MS 157-97 (SLO 97-157)
LOCATED AT 55.AND 61 BROAD STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Community Development Director of the City of San
Luis Obispo, as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the Community Development Director, after
consideration of the tentative map of Minor Subdivision MS 157-97 (SLO 97-157) and
the staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements, as conditioned, are
consistent with the General Plan.
1. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the
High-Density Residential, with Planned Development (R-4-PD) zone.
2. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, as conditioned, are
not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
3. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision.
4. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed land
division is exempt from environmental review, because it meets all standards
(Class 15, Section 15315).
6. The design of the proposed subdivision, including four lots, may not be physically
suited to the construction of another building on proposed lot 1.
SECTION 2. Conditions. That the approval of the tentative map for Minor
Subdivision MS 157-97 (SLO 97-157) be subject to the following conditions:
1. The final map shall show a total of three parcels, with proposed parcel 1 combined
with parcel 2 or 4, or otherwise reconfigured so that the property within parcel 1 is
part of a lot that contains a building.
DA 97-04
Page 2
.2. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc.,
shall be tied to the City's control network. At least two control points shall be
used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map. A
3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data for use in
AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information system
(GIS) purposes, is also required to be submitted to the City Engineer. Any
exception to this requirement must be approved by the City Engineer.
3. The subdivider shall install a City standard handicap ramp at the corner of Ramona
and Palomar, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
4. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the
International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be
used -on the final map where necessary (for example, all record data shall be
entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in
parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer.
5. A tree protection plan and tree preservation bond shall be submitted prior to any
further development near or adjacent to the creek, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. Any future development shall not encroach within the
dripline of any tree determined to be significant by the City Arborist. All existing
trees are to remain, with the exception of seven palms. No grade changes are
allowed within the dripline of any oaks. If asphalt beneath the dripline of oaks next
to the creek is removed during construction, protective fencing must be installed
immediately to protect the dripline area from construction traffic. No materials or
vehicles are to be stored or parked within the dripline of any oak. The City Arborist
must be notified prior to removal of such asphalt.
6. The developer shall install bicycle racks near the entrance of each building (two
bicycles per rack). Each building shall have bike lockers for two bicycles, or
comparable enclosed spaces dedicated to this use.
7. The engineer for the project shall submit water demand and wastewater generation
calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the .
supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an off-site deficiency exists, the
subdivider will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the •overall
project.
8. The subdivider must submit an agreement for common parking and access for all
lots, along with recording fees, to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
9. The subdivider shall dedicate a six-foot-wide public utility easement and a 10'-wide
street tree easement along all public street frontages, to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director.
DA 97-04
Page 3
10. Any bridging of the creek shall be in compliance with the City's Flood
Management Policy Book (specifically regarding clear-spanning of creeks) and
approved by the City Council, Department of Fish and Game, and Corps of
Engineers.
11. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree
pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction
of the Director of Public Works, The Community Development Director, Corps of
Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game. .
12. Density on all parcels must be consistent with City regulations, as approved by
the City Council in its action on the Planned Development appeal.
SECTION 3. Code Reauirements. That the following represent standard
requirements required by various codes, ordinances and policies of the City of San
Luis Obispo:
1. The applicant shall submit a parcel map for approval and recordation. The map
shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of, a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor. The parcel map shall be prepared in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act and Subdivision Regulations.
2. All parcels shall be served by individual water, sewer and utilities services.
3. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
4. A water allocation shall be developed for the proposed building on proposed parcel
3. Water allocations may also need to be developed for parcel 2, if the remodeling
results in increased demand on the water system. The City's Water Conservation
Division can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number
of retrofits.
5. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are
issued. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of
the water meter serving each parcel.
6. All buildings shall have oil and sand separators to the satisfaction of the City's
Industrial Waste Coordinator.
/— 83
DA 97-04
Page 4
7. EPA requirement: A General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit is required
for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where
clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres.
Storm water discharges of less than five acres, that are a part of a larger common
plan of development or sale, also require a permit. A permit is required until the
construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit,
the owner of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed
"Notice of Intent" (NOO form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board.
The foregoing document was passed and adopted this 4th day of April, 1997.
Com nity De opment Director
Arnold B. Jona
By Ronald Whisenand, Hearing Officer
Draft
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Regular Meeting -April 21, 1997
PRESENT: Commrs. James Aiken, Woody Combrink, Linda Day, Curtis Illingworth,
Peggy Mandeville, Laura Joines-Novotny, and Ron Regier
ABSENT: None
OTHERS
PRESENT: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner and Ron Whisenand, Development
Review Manager
PROJECTS:
1. ARC 158-96: 61 Broad Street: Review of remodel and addition for senior
housing; R+PD zone; Morrison 1 LLC, applicant.
Judy Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending final
approval, with direction to move the dining patio for the Heritage outside of the 20'
riparian setback and modify planting plans, to the approval of staff.
Commrs. Regier and Mandeville noted that they met the applicant at the site. Commr.
Aiken said he viewed the site and Commrs. Day and Combrink visited the site on their
own.
Hamish Marshall, representative, reviewed the previous hearing of the ARC and the
direction given. He demonstrated roofline setbacks on the site plan. He introduced
Jack Witter from Windchime Group and Randy Rea from APS.
Jack Witter, partner of Windchime Group, Walnut Creek, explained that he had 10-11
years experience with assisted living facilities. He compared skilled nursing to assisted
care. He said the facility would look residential but would provide some medical
services. He noted that early dementia patients need help with medication and
dressing. The facility would be administered by registered nurses or licensed
vocational nurses. He said that staff quality is important. Mr. Witter said the average
size of such facilities is usually recommended to be between 74 and 78 units. He said
he did a marketing study of the county. He estimated the number of older persons who
would need help with "Activities of Daily Living° (ADL) and indicated there was a market
county wide for 1600 shared rooms and 2200 private. He estimated 250-300 people at
any time need such care. He showed the staffing costs, saying 60% of the cost is
labor.
/-8s
ARC Minutes
April 21, 1997
Page 2
Randy Rea, architect, noted the difficulties in achieving compatibility between adjacent
R-4 and R-1 zones. He described the sketches submitted to the Commission, which
showed the second floor as prominent from the street. He also showed the photo
modifications and said he felt the refinements were improving the building. He asked
for approval.
Commr. Illingworth asked about the logic of the.choice of location. He felt the size and
bulk of the building was a limitation as much as easements and size of site are.
Randy Rea explained the program included a need for common areas, heights, and
other elements and described the elimination of alternatives.
Hamish Marshall noted that this would be the only proposed campus that would allow
"aging in place°. He indicated that the building could be moved elsewhere but it would
be isolated and it is already among two and three story buildings.
Commr. Aiken asked for an indication on the plans of where the flags are located.
Hamish displayed elevations and indicated where the flags were in relation to building
walls.
Randy Rea stated the deliveries need to be in back of the building. He also noted that
the parking in the tennis area could be modified.
Jim Burroughs, FIRMA, described the landscape plan. He explained it would have the
resort feel and he planned to preserve the old plants. He mentioned the creek
restoration and noted that all existing mature trees were to be retained and invasive
species would be removed from the creek , and the new planting would improve the
flow.
Commr. Mandeville asked about the path along Broad Street by the Village.
Mr. Burroughs explained that the path would remain and he would soften the
landscaping. He said the fencing would be replaced and the screening would remain.
He noted the lawn areas were for walkers and the walkway width had been designed
for a residential feel and would be broken up with wider patches of lawn. He explained
the driveways would be gated. He said the wood fence would be replaced with wrought
iron. The gates are intended for security. Turf will be only in locations where it is easy
to irrigate.
Mr. Marshall said it would be a "residential" fence.
ARC Minutes
April 21, 1997
Page 3
Burroughs said that residential wrought-iron fencing uses smaller.railings.
Bill McLennan,. speaking on behalf of the appellants, stated there was serious
controversy about the density and parking, "very disputed issues". He said the
Commission should make no assumptions about approvals, and wanted everything
together at one meeting. He had'requested economic data from the applicants but did
not get it. The neighborhood is under seige and struggling to preserve itself. He noted
that they want the seniors and the concept is fine, but he felt the impact of the building
on the neighborhood would be too much. He compared it to a Sierra Vista and wanted
the neighborhood to stay as a family neighborhood. Photos were shown and he stated
it would have a tremendous impact. Everyone supported a two-story building, and he
prefers the Ramona site. He felt that parking should be off site and the building is too
big. He-thought the houses across the street would be rented to students or become
offices.
Kirby Gordon, Pismo Beach, representative of Valencia, said Valencia houses 480
students. He noted that the Village used to be Tropicana and he felt there could be
more students and more noise instead of this proposal. He said they had done a good
job converting the Village, but the campus does not presently offer the opportunity to
move from one level of care to another and he felt the proposal was an exceptional
opportunity and would meet the needs of the community.
Alex Paninides, part owner of project, stated the lot coverage by the new building is
38%. He said Mr. McLennan did not represent the neighborhood. He talked about
aging in place" again and noted that the Planning Commission had unanimously
approved the planned development. He said if they scaled it down it would cut out 25%
of the residents and he felt the project would serve the needs of the commun
said most residents no longer drive: It would be possible for that site to hHe
ouse ity.ity. He
00
students. He mentioned that he resented the implications about "the neighborhood" not
inclucing the Village residents and said there were petitions circulating with hundreds
of names in support of the project
Lloyd Dietrich, resident of the Village, stated he has lived in San Luis Obispo since
1950 and felt he was part of the community. He said that beauty is in the eyes of the
beholder. He told of a friend visiting a friend"at the Seashell Communities in Mono Bay
and hopes he never has to move there. He said he preferred a building to the existing
parking lot. He still drives some but does not feel that traffic will be a concern.
Harold Guitter, resident since 1969, discussed the hearings for McDonald's on Foothill.
Everyone thought people would be killed. He said he is 94 years old and doesn't want
to move.
/-87
ARC Minutes
April 21, 1997
Page 4
Flo Tartaglia, 70 N. Broad, said she has seen a lot of changes in the 47 years she has
been there. She asked why it could not be a two story building. Why not put two
people to a room and double up rooms. She wondered why the assisted care building
is not feasible at the Palomar site but a convalescent home may be. It is going to be
here a long time and it is some distance to walk from the Heritage to cars. She
suggested thinking of the generations to come. She felt that they should look at the
long range and perhaps come to a compromise.
Daphne Boatright, resident since 1953, said the ARC's job is not a sociological mission.
The ARC should examine the structure and how it fits into the neighborhood. The
stakes are high and parking is also an issue. She .noted there would be 24 hour care
and she would like some modifications.
Imogene Ewen, Village resident for five years, stated she lives on the third floor and
loves it. She said her husband was in a three-level care facility in Alhambra, and it did
not ruin the neighborhood. She felt there was a need for assisted living because it is
hard to move to a care facility. Group living is desirable and the Village is the best of
its kind.
Doris Tucker, resident since 1958, stated she has been the owner of several
properties. She currently lives at the Village and loves it. She was not brought to the
hearing but came voluntarily. She said many need assisted living. She stated that
many residents are in their 90's.
Lloyd Dietrich said he spoke at hearings on the bumps on Chorro Street and that
nobody dictates what he says.
Ben Bertram has lived at the Village for 15 months. He came to the county in 1952. He
managed Chumash Village in 1972-73 and filled it up. He also managed a motel in Las
Vegas. He admitted that he hadn't heard much at this hearing because his hearing is
bad. He said he appreciates the management and staff at the Village.
Steve Carlson, 724 Meinecke, said he had no squabble with the concept, but he did
have a problem with the size of the building. He hopes to stay here a long time and
hopes for a good decision to be made.
Madalyn Ropner, 721 Murray, said she owns her home and represents the whole
neighborhood. She felt they shouldn't have to be forced to sell their homes so that
offices can take over the neighborhood.
Jake Feldmein, 711 Murray, stated he is concerned about the scale of the project. He
4
ARC Minutes
April 21, 1997
Page 5
felt the residential quality of ttie neighborhood had been established at Ramona and
there are no other 35' buildings in the area. He said an honest evaluation should
include a massing model. He thought the Broad Street building, as proposed, would
impact the neighborhood seriously.
Patrick Smith addressed the architecture. He said it is in the highest zone in the city,
but adjacent to R-1. It is a difficult site, there is limited area to work with. He noted the
campus had to work visually and economically. It is basically the same as a shopping
center. He mentioned the three stories and that the view corridor would be affected
only for the neighbors across the street. He said it is over 120' from those residents'
homes to the 35' height. Residents would be affected by a building of lower height as
well. He described an alternative dormer elevation and explained the need for three
stories. The building will be here a long time. He said he still owns all of the multi-
family buildings he has constructed in the city. He asked for approval and noted that
he had commented on convalescent care at a neighborhood meeting. He described
the idea of adding a convalescent home and said he was waiting to see how the
parking would work. If all goes well, there may be excess parking. He is considering
12-20 convalescent rooms.
Bill Green, lives across the street from the Village, stated he built his house 49 years
age. Traffic has increased and there is a need for parking in the area. He asked
where the Villagers parked. He felt the Village was too big.
Roberta Foster, 748 Meinecke, has lived there since 1970. She felt the project was too
big. She was also surprised about the security gates.
Daphne Boatright asked about the security gates. She appealed to the applicant for
reasonableness.
Betty Noyes has been in the area since 1944. She said she chose the Village and is
81 years old and may need more care in a few years. She felt that security gates were
important
Lindsay, manager of the Village, stated that gates give residents the sense of safety,
keep the homeless out of the creek, and also keep skateboarders and others out of the
area at night
The public hearing was closed.
Commr. Combrink said that finances are not the concern of the Commission, that
architectural features and context are. He noted that when there is R-4 zoning next to
y-�
ARC Minutes .
April 21, 1997
Page 6
R-1 there are always major problems. He referred to a project on Foothill that had a
similar situation and major revisions were needed. There have been minor revisions to
this project. He described another house that was revised substantially to fix the views,
which are important. He said we can't consider the Village building as a standard. It is
hard to realize the impact on the neighborhood. The other buildings are thinner, cut
up, and set back. He felt the proposed setbacks don't take scale into account. He
noted there is a petition with'45 names opposed to the size of the building. He
suggested scaling down the building significantly. The creek setbacks can be dealt
With at staff level.
Commr. Illingworth basically agreed with Commr. Combrink. He said nobody disagrees
with the concept, only the size of the building. He thought the Planning Commission
would define the size. He felt the minimum recommendation that can go back to the
council is specific limits on height and closeness to the street. There may be ways to
retain part of the third story if it is set back further.
Commr. Regier said the net effect of the project would be a dramatic plus for the
neighborhood. He liked the elevation from Broad Street. He had some concerns about
the side elevation, but he liked the architecture, articulation.. He felt security gates are
not aesthetically pleasing. He spent time at the site and looked at the views from
across the street. He thought the difference between a two-and three-story building
would not be dramatic. He said it could be moved back further toward the creek. He
noted that he did not mind if the process continues slowly.
Commr. Joines-Novotny agreed with the other commissioners. She felt it would be a
Positive conversion. She thought it looked better and was a good concept. The
negatives also include the security fencing. She felt it could create a more dangerous
street situation. She commented that the patio and turf should not encroach into the
creek setback area and felt a 20' setback was absolutely necessary. She felt the new
building was too close to the street. She recommended pushing the building back,
widening it and matching the height of the Village. She would like to see more
vegetation in front and allow the three story portion in the center or at the rear only.
The number of bridges seemed excessive.
Commr. Day said she liked the project for its context. She felt the "campus" needed to
have multiple levels. She wanted like to focus on architectural and contextual issues.
She said it had been suggested that property owners have more rights than renters.
The legitimacy of the architectural argument seemed based on how long one had lived
here. She stated the Commission looks at the context and compatibility and that the
purpose of the project does matter. As an architect and planner, she felt the revision
did provide an adequate setback but she could support the setting the building back
further. She also liked the dormer idea. She mentioned that food trucks seem to keep
/—90
ARC Minutes
April 21, 1997
Page 7
their condensers running and should be unloading at the rear. She felt the parking
shouldn't be right at the edge of the building. She thought car parking could be
elsewhere.
Commr. Aiken said this is an emotional issue for everyone. He agreed with Commr.
Combrink about the issues. He also agreed with Commr. Day on the parking. He felt
that quantity of parking was not an issue, but was concerned with the placement of the
building. Exploration of the Ramona site would be worth doing. He felt if they kept the
parking where it is now, that parking would be just as much of a concern as visibility.
The most logical location for the building is probably the one shown. The roof's size is
still a problem, the imposing pitch may be too high. He thought if the third story were
setback more and the building were set back further it would be better. He stated that
the open space area in the RaTnona parking area is of no benefit to the neighbors. He
mentioned that fencing was a concern. He was not sure that having this project return
would be a benefit. He favored not continuing the item.
Commr. Mandeville felt the wrought iron design would be important, and she could see
the need for a sense of security. She noted the gate should be.open. during the day.
She said the extra aisle in back, on the tennis court site, could be eliminated and
opened to the creek landscaping. She suggested exploring having more tables
outside. She appreciated the effort that had been made with setbacks. The Village
setback seems more residential and she thought it would be a good idea to have the
Heritage line up with the Village. She didn't want to lose any units but felt R-4 next to
R-1 was a mistake and since it was there, there would be transition work needed,
especially at Broad Street. She noted that removing the third story portion seemed to
help a lot. Lastly, using landscaping like the Village's would be a good idea.
Commr. Joines-Novotny moved to continue the project to a date uncertain, with the
following direction:
The Heritage: The Commission in concept with the construction of a building for this
purpose on this site, and agreed with the architectural style and colors proposed. The
Commission found that proposed building setbacks and scale are the major issues to
be resolved. To that end, the Commission directed the applicant to redesign the project
so that the massing presents a two-story appearance to Broad Street and the
neighborhood, and specifically directed the applicant to
• set back the building from Broad Street the same distance as the existing buildings
at 55 Broad (The Village) and provide significant landscaping in this setback area;
• set back the third story 40' further back from the street setback line;
ARC Minutes
April 21, 1997
Page 8
• break up the roofline appearance by use of dormers and other features;
• maintain a maximum height of 35';
The Commission gave the following direction on other aspects of the project:
Fencing:
• if determined necessary, security fencing shall be designed in accordance with the
City's fence height regulations. The design should residential in appearance with
gates that are open during the day.
Creek:
• Keep required creek setbacks clear of patios and ornamental planting. Details of
creek planting can be reviewed by staff.
Commr. Illingworth seconded the motion.
b.
AYES: Joines-Novotny, Illingworth, Aiken, Day, Regier, Mandeville
NOES: Combrink
ABSENT: None
The motion passed.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
Staff:
Ron Whisenand noted that no items have been scheduled for the next two meetings
yet. He distributed draft sign regulations and explained changes. He asked for
comments on formatting and errors by May 7. He also explained the City Council's
action on the Madonna Road Carl's Jr. Appeal.
Commission:
Commr. Day said she would not be present on May 5, 1997.
Commr. Aiken noted that an inflatable sign had been used at the Jamba Juice store
downtown. He asked about work being done at the Highway Patrol site on California
Blvd.
ARC Minutes
April 21, 1997
Page 9
Commr. Combrink said a City identification sign had been removed as part of the
construction project..
Whisenand explained that different governments are exempt from each other's
regulations, and that the City has not been informed of work at the State site. He said
he would check into the status of the sign.
Commr. Illingworth asked about the drive-through convenience store on Broad Street at
El Capitan.
Whisenand explained that the project had been approved by the County before the site
was annexed to the City.
ADJOURNED at 8:25 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission scheduled for Monday, May 5, 1.997 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing
Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Judy Lautner
Recording Secretary
/—q3
I city. of sAn tujS OBISPO
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
1
CAYr/f/L?ISSL0,1 rendered on
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) .
The undersigned discussed
the decision being appealed with:
60 415 on i S 7 7
Name/Department (Date)
/n �A &�&�.4 s,— z i l
Appellant: �IL�- �,V r C Le rI E1 C ?i�D 5 st'd
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
�t1-(' -�? TS-D
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared forDate &Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s): ' a C a 91 V
.l IAOrNE10 MAK 1 8 IVW
A. 9 AT CITY CLERK
Original in City Clerk's Office SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA �_ ��
WILLIAM R. McLENNAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
RAILROAD SOLLARE
IBM SANTA BARBARA.SECOND FLOOR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
(805)54479$0
Honorable Mayor and City Council March 18, 1997
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401
Re: 61 and 55 Broad Street Project (The Heritage at Garden Creek)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I would like to appeal the ruling of the Planning Commission concerning 55 and
61 Broad Streets (PD, ER 158-96). I have outlined below the reasons for this appeal.
1. The 25% density bonus was granted without following the appropriate procedures and
making the appropriate findings required by 17.62.040 (A) and (B)
This Heritage at Garden Creek is an"assisted living"complex for seniors more
than 62 years of age that will include 64 studio apartments and associated facilities(dining rooms,
therapy rooms,a beauty shop, office space etc.). The proposed building for this complex will be
three stories high with a minimal setback. It will be located in the present parking lot for 61,
Broad Street, a student apartment complex that will be converted to deluxe senior congregate
living (ie apartments and spa with dining facilities).
This proposed project will be located in an historic area of San Luis Obispo that
struggles for survival as a vital, family neighborhood. The potential impact of this large building
in this location could be monumental and irreversible, creating more traffic and parking problems
and,potentially, a neighborhood that is only occupied by students. These potential problems
illustrate the absolute need to carefully follow the procedures outlined in 17.62.040 before a
project ofthis density is approved by the Planning Commission.
1
/- 4.S
The Heritage at'Garden Creek is located on 1.05 acres of land and requires a
"density bonus'to even marginally meet density requirements. The proper procedure for granting
this density bonus was not following in this case. Rather than using the clearly delineated
procedures that specifically regulate and control the granting of a density bonus in a planned
development, a totally inappropriate or, at best, sequentially inappropriate regulation was
utilized to secure the 25%density bonus and project'approval. The effect of this action was to
avoid the procedural safeguards and protections normally provided to neighbors of a planned
development, and rapidly secure approval for a multi-impact project that may be too large for the
neighborhood.
First, it is crucial to remember the purpose of a planned development. As stated in
Section 17.50.010:
"The planned development zone is intended to "encourage imaginative.
development and effective use of sites. It does this by allowing more variation in project design
than normal standards would allow. Such variation from normal standards should provide
benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which could not be provided
under conventional regulations . . .
The Heritage at Garden Creek meets the criteria for a planned development
because it"provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as elderly
or families with children)which would not be feasible under conventional zoning . . . "
(17.62.040 (A)(1). However, a 25% density bonus for a planned development is not
automatic simply because it provides facilities for the elderly. No such intention is stated
anywhere in this section; as will be demonstrated, the opposite is true. To receive the density
bonus, a planned development must meet several criteria that protect and benefit the community.
The following procedures listed in 17.62.040 (B) were not followed, but are requested
before the 25% density bonus is awarded to this project:
1. The Commission and Council must find that the proposed development satisfies
at least three of the five criteria set out in subsection A of this section (see addendum for sgction
A criteria).
2. The applicant shall provide a detailed statement indicating how the
development satisfies the appropriate criteria set out in subsection A of this subsection.
3. In determining the allowable bonus, the commission and Council shall assess
the extent to which these criteria are met.
4. The maximum density bonus is not automatic.
In the present case,the above-listed regulations,normally utilized to determine the
applicability of a density bonus in a planned development,were ignored and instead section
2
17.90.020 (D) was inappropriately used to award a density bonus. This action clearly violated
the intent ofplanned development regulations and arrogantly marginalized neighborhood concerns
and fears about this project.
Section 17.90.020 (D) grants a density bonus of 25%to a residential project for
senior residents. This automatic result conflicts with the detailed procedures and protections
afforded neighborhoods and the community when a planned development is considered by the
Planning Commission. Simply because a planned development involves senior citizens, it is not
exempt from the procedures outlined for planned developments. If such a goal was intended,it
would have been stated in the regulations relating to planned developments.
The more specific planned development regulations for density bonuses must be
followed in this case. Unfortunately,they were ignored and the neighborhood and the community
may suffer from a project that has not been evaluated as required by appropriate planned
development zoning regulations.
This project must be referred back to the Planning Commission, the appropriate
reports must be filed by the applicant and the appropriate findings must be made by the Planning
Commission. To hold otherwise violates the procedural rights of the adjacent neighbors and the
intention of the zoning regulations.
2. The 25% density bonus granted for meeting Planned Development criteria cannot be
increased by an additional 25% pursuant to section 17.90.030 (D)
Section 17.50.30 A is specifically incorporated in section 17.62.040 (B),relating
to Planned Developments, and states, in pertinent part:
than 25%. Residential densities may exceed those allowed in the underlying zone by not more
To the extent that section 17.90.030 (D) seems to allow an additional bonus of
25% above the density bonus that can be awarded to planned developments, it is in conflict with
this more specific section and must be disregarded.
3. The Heritage is under parked
The Heritage is too large for the site and may not provide sufficient adjacent
parking to protect the neighborhood from intrusion by staff and visitor automobiles. A more
realistic methodology for calculating parking needs must be used for this project.
Once again, the Heritage is a 64-unit complex with a beauty and barber shop,
therapy room, employee lounge, and complete dining facilities. Parking is provided primarily in
the Ramona/Palomar parking lot. The building has been allocated 16 parking spaces, based on a
3
/, 97
calculation of one space per four beds.
It is unclear and perhaps naive to assume that occupancy will forever be limited to
64 residents. In the future,and possibly under different management, two residents could easily
occupy each room without violating any occupancy limits(there is none). Both occupants and, of
more importance, staff will double. Where will they park?
Of note;the applicant states 14 employees and four guests will be on the site at
anyone time. First, these calculations seem low, and, even if accepted, indicate the facility is
under parked. Inexplicably, the applicant indicates they have provided 22 parking spaces for
The Heritage. (See Industry Norms for Parking provided by applicant. Of note,this data is
apparently based on an informal survey of undisclosed methodology;no daily labor work guides
or other industry publications have been provided for review).
If parking spaces adjacent to The Heritage are filled, the incentive will be to park
in the neighborhood, which is closer to the building, than in the parking lot on Ramona and
Palomar. Once again, this building may be too large and may not provide sufficient adjacent .
parking to meet the needs of the future. As stated above, the project simply needs further study
consistent with applicable zoning regulations.
j
Sincerely,
L-.,Z
William R. McLennan
4
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: CRITERIA FOR 25% BONUS
17.62.040(B) states:
In order to grant a "density bonus" (as explained in Section 17.50.030), the
commission and Council must find that the proposed development satisfies at
least three of the five criteria set out in subsection A of this section. The
application shall provide a detailed statement indicating how the
development satisfies the appropriate criteria set out in subsection A of
this section. The maximum density bonus is not automatic. In determining
the allowable bonus, the Commission and Council shall assess the extent to
which these criteria are met.
17.62.040 (A)
1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group
(such as elderly or families with children) which would not be feasible
under conventional zoning;
2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas.of greater
environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard;
3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with
conventional development;
4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional
standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility
with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or better than the
standards themselves;
5. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials,
energy or water than conventional development;
6. The proposed.project provides exceptional public benefits such as
parluag, open space, landscaping, public art, and other special amenities
which would not be feasible under conventional development standards."
�_94
WILLIAM R. McLENNAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
RAILROAD SOL ARE
1880 SANTA BARBARA•SECOND FLOORa
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
(965)544.7950 -.14R 2 .1 19��
'OFA
•"",,SOB
Honorable Mayor and City Council March 20, 1997
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401
Re: 61 and 55 Broad Street Project(The Heritage at Garden Creek)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I would like to add an additional item to my appeal of the Planning Commission
ruling,concerning 55 and 61 Broad Streets (PD,ER 158-96).
In addition, I have included my objections to the applicant's request for the
creation.of four lots from two lots at this site. I realize this issue will be heard on April 4, 1997,
by an administrative officer, but I anticipate approval of the lot split and believe all issues should
be heard at one time by the City Council.
Finally,I will be out of town and on vacation from April 17, 1997, until and
including May 3, 1997, and would appreciate a hearing date after May 3, 1997, which will also
allow the consolidation of all issues at one city council session.
4. The Heritage at Garden Creek creates an inappropriate density for the site.
The density for the Heritage at Garden Creek was erroneously calculated. If
calculated by dwelling, the density of this site is 33.6 dwellings(32 dwellings x 1.05 acres). This
exceeds density requirements, even with the density bonus(25.2 dwellings for the site withbut
the density bonus, 31.5 dwellings for the site with the density bonus).
The staff assumption that there will only be only 64 occupants for the life of this
building is completely unsupportable. Since no occupancy limits were set by the Planning
Commission,this facility could easily accommodate two persons per unit(128 people). This
yields a density figure of 121.9 occupants for the site, (128 occupants divided by 1.05 acres),
again completely exceeding density requirements (58 occupants for the site without the density
bonus, 72 occupants for the site with the density bonus).
1
1T. ��ec.�►5
Of note,and as previously stated, Section 17.50.30(A) is specifically incorporated
in section 17.62.040(B),relating to Planned Developments, and states, in pertinent part, .
"Residential densities may exceed those allowed in the underlying zone by not more than 25%."
OBJECTIONS TO LOT SPLIT
4. The only purpose of a lot split placing The Heritage at Garden Creek on its own parcel
is to facilitate the separate sale of this over dense and under parked facility.
If the lot split is approved, a separate parcel will be created for The Heritage at
Garden Creek_ Unfortunately,this facility could then be sold as a separate entity if the proposed
density and parking spaces are approved by the Council. The result would bean"independent"
64-unit residential facility with 128 potential occupants(two per room) and approximately 25-30
staffmembers(double the 14 estimated by the applicant if there are 64 occupants) on the site at
one time. Yet even with this level of potential occupancy and use, there are only 22 parking
spaces available on this proposed parcel and, more absurdly, only 16 parking spaces are
required for this building.
In the future,the staff and residents could be prevented from using the large
Palomar/Ramona parking lot. This scenario (a huge building, grossly under parked, separately
sold, with no access to the Palomar/Ramona lot) would be a parking and density disaster for the
neighborhood. Broad Street at this location will become the same uninhabitable eyesore,from the
perspective of a neighborhood populated by single families, as Casa Street near Sierra Vista
Hospital.
The Heritage at Garden Creek must never be separated from the entire complex
and its Palomar/Ramona parking lot. The lot split must be denied, unless the building and its
parking needs are approved as an independent entity, and redesigned to accommodate a realistic
density and adequate parking on the site to meet the needs of all staff,visitors and occupants.
6. Conclusion
As previously stated,this project must be referred back to the Planning
Commission for the appropriate reports and findings. Subsequently, if a density bonus is
awarded, a realistic building design must be developed with an acceptable density and adequate
on- site parking.
Sincerely,
William R.McLennan
2
�Ilill III cityuilso san � OBIS- po
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In-accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision'of
1. Arendered on
which consist d of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting-the.appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) .
4)?
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant:
Nam r11e Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
Home Phone Work Phone '
Representative: Lr(Qirv. 3 a
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) f�3
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for Date&Tme Received
o: City Attomey
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s): '
Original in City Clerk's Office
FLORENCE TARTAGLIA
70 N. Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
(805) 543-3076
March 20, 1997
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of San -Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: 61. and 55 Broad Street Project (The Heritage at Garden
Creek)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I would:like to appeal the ruling of the Planning Commission
concerning 55 and 61 Broad Streets (PD ER .158-96) .
1. The 25% density bonus was granted without following the
appropriate procedures and making the appropriate findings
required by 17.62.040 (A) and (B) .
2. A 25% desnity bonus for a planned development is not
automatic simply because it provides facilities for the elderly.
(See William McLennan' s letter page. 2, Items 1 through 4. )
3. The 25% density bonus granted for meeting Planned Development
criteria cannot be increased by an additional 25% pursuant to
Section 17.90.030 (D) . (Again, see William McLennan's letter,
page 3, Item 2.
4. The Heritage is under parked.
As proposed the Heritage is a 64-unit complex with a beauty and
barber shop, therapy room, employee lounge, laundry and complete
dining facilities. Parking is provided primarily in the
Ramona/Palomar lot. Sixteen parking spaces, based on
acalculation of one space per four beds has been alloted.
It is naive to assume that occupany will remain at 64 residents.
In the future, and most likely under different management, two
(2)_ residents could easily occupy each room without violating any
occupancy limits (there is none) . Both occupants and, of more
importance, staff will double. Where will they park???
5. The proposed Heritage building violates numerous provisions
of the General Plan, including many in the. LUE "Conservation and
Development of Residential Neighborhoods section, including:
LUE 2.2.10. "All multifamily development and large
group-living facilities should be compatible with ANY nearby
��1G3
2
lower density development. A. - New buildings should respect
existing buildings. . in terms of size, spacing and variety-
B. . .New buildings will respect the privacy . . . of neighboring
buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where CLEARLYF THIS
multistorybuildings . . . may overlook adjacent dwellings.
HUGE, ENORMOUS BUILDING CONFORMS TO NONE OF THE ABOVE-
The building as planned is too big and poorly planned for the
elderly adults destined to occupy it. Occupants on the second
and third floors who may be using walkers and canes have very
.long distances to walk to the dining room, In addition,. the
building occupies the whole lot, leaving little space for walking
outside, or sitting on a porch to enjoy the outdoors. The
provision for the inside courtyard is dreary and depressing and
is a poor substitute for fresh air and being outdoors. .
IN NITORED AND
TO CONCLUSION
NEVERHOULD REVERTLSO BACKETOOSTUDENT HOUSINULATED
PROJECT G
As stated above, the project simply needs further study
consistent with applicable zoning regulations.
Sincerely,
F7,O TARTAGLIA
ol��ll ���u��oi� oB�s
II�IIII IIU citYo san l�uis
i
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by.Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
;SMn0bispoMunicip Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
rendered on
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for subm' in the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
i
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on t
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant �L ��—r .�yl 1�,� �s l/l- Y�d'�� iJS�=
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for Date&Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the•following department(s): '
- � Lr�IfTA(Ee
Original in City Clq1VR Offi -�G�
�II atc of tuis oBiSV0, ,_
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL 49
• "OF
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
0
tkp A"IQ n n( n a 00 m rendered on m a rc I j of c 7
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting-the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) .
55 and Cc ( 3 (`oact '--,(
4perouoJ or-nend rn enls
1nle eK( 5+ln vlanmea c etop"r)Ler14 �nvrronm �S
e i' ryl(Y. i7ri; CI? n c4 l os Pf `l N� 1 ri�u cl�2, a 3
. t)UI �LQf1'lg I.Y�
rlstrnt 1V0re4c on
ry is h 40 oc` ion arc(, s v pper`t- to I � (urs, (Y�e.LaW.5 .
0- 0 L-5 �-0J ,e �S e >✓. C -�a clime ed-5 -aPa y �
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant: Se"A-(5 & f 13IWA-D , 5LO, 23LI05
a e/Tdle Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
�g'/3 &507-
Home Phone Work Phone '
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for Date &Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s):
A t 4,C7
cT �rk� �jAii 1 ': i79r
WY eUnc
Original in City Clerk's Office SAN WIS OBISPO.CA
t 1t 4.0 er� R 4 n n��n ct% ss/v�
`�tajlDM an i �� 3rvaq S�►fiee��
s froec`�- LGOukd emr co,61 a n Q
olcQ net horhood
I t i ed C7•
� ea S
no c
s�s
ZYV� ov � t1c � owPr%e .
ri tQ
C1
t s nock ho v rs a-S, c�
�a o`� C.C��n��'o [stn• D��l cc �`lZt ri � m I
clL nc.f�asea
L
P r n -
o o � ll aM c� ou
�0
Qet(n
eQ r
• µ_Vi.-. _._�.i. .._.
u
t
zoo uC
b Corte a emblem. na�S�eS � (`on-� � as S:
t r eo` tksv�c av�.4 �,ea-�c riy on i' ,z cse rye a� ° 6
sc11, .bl)L ldcn
: ink 000 n-e�
�I ease... ons L d�e P -,-Itie
10 r `�-�c 1on
-�h1's ��a ,r artn . I
V �}
too U t GP u t-e -S �5
BtShoPs "PeOLrZ- ,. n LuLs ff)oontccLv�
Q tom, Id-►n, s S Sc z-e
bu 1 c�it�e acros —��M Pestc�Len�� L
t0�C)Cj �IGC,«l n Irl �ecv
.O. . Q.
��`�� b(ts ��, n,.ei r Ivo .
'on
mass
stcR�e(' 4h s e,
_ _ . . b0<<d
t nc� . aewSS
``GV�2 . �°Fr�e� From u.` awn ro.rn yes .
a.Cso such Cons( d e
Co RS�f'U c con D r�c� on X0'1 o
14v ��s'f-
LIS� iao POIc -S� oy*s arte- e-vLcS-� d
a 0 r wr\,s(d PJ1 afl'o n
cam, Sewn°
(&05) .5q3— 50-7
R4, 3 of 3
/-!off
WILLIAM R. McLENNAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
RAILROAD SQUARE
1880 SANTA BARBARA•SECOND FLOOR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
(805)544.7850 ]Pig 8 C D
ly97c
�s
Ms. Judith Lautner April 7, 1997
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401
Re: 55 and 61 Broad
Dear Ms. Lautner:
I would like to appeal the April 4, 1997, decision approving the lot split for the
above listed property. The basis for the appeal was contained in a letter previously sent to Pam
Ricci and is as follows:
I believe the only reason for creating a separate parcel for the Heritage at Garden
Creek is to facilitate the separate sale of this over dense and under parked facility. A simple lot
lime adjustment would eliminate the lot line under the proposed building. The only stated
justification for creating a separate parcel for the Heritage at Garden Creek was"to obtain
financing"and I am not sure (but will investigate fiuther) if this statement is true.
If the lot split is approved, a separate parcel will be created for The Heritage at
Garden Creek. Unfortunately, this facility could then be sold as a separate entity if the proposed
density and parking spaces are approved by the Council. The result would be an"independent"
64-unit residential facility with 128 potential occupants (two per room) and approximately 25-30
staff members (double the 14 estimated by the applicant if there are 64 occupants) on the site at
one time. Yet even with this level of potential occupancy and use, there are only 22 parking
spaces available on this proposed parcel and, more absurdly, only 16 parking spaces are required
for this building.
In the future, the staff and residents could be prevented from using the large
Palomar/Ramona parking lot. This scenario (a huge building, grossly under parked, separately
sold, with no access to the Palomar/Ramona lot) would be a parking and density disaster for the
neighborhood. Broad Street at this location will.become the same uninhabitable eyesore, from the
perspective of a neighborhood populated by single.families, as Casa Street near Sierra Vista
Hospital
�a 9
The Heritage at Garden Creek must never be separated from the Village West
and its Palomar/Ramona parking lot. The lot split must be denied, unless the building and its
parking needs are approved as an independent entity, and redesigned to accommodate a realistic
density and adequate parking on the site to meet the needs of all staff visitors and occupants.
Once again, thank you for your assistance in this matter.
$incerely
William R. McLennan _
/io
percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance
with the adjustment factors on which the moderate income eligibility limits are based.
(3) °Area median income" shall mean area median income as periodically
established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to
Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal
commitments to ensure continued availability of units for the lower income households in
accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years.
(4) °Neighborhood° means a planning area commonly identified as such in a
community's planning documents, and identified as a neighborhood by the individuals
residing and working within the neighborhood. Documentation demonstrating that the area
meets the definition of neighborhood may include a map prepared for planning purposes
which lists the name and boundaries of the neighborhood.
(i) If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes
restrictions, including a reduction of allowable densities or the percentage of a lot which
may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in
force at the time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943,.which
have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development
affordable to low-and moderate-income households,and the denial of the development or
the imposition of restrictions on the development is the subject of a court action which-
challenges-the denial, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to
show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision(d).
(!) When a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable
general plan, zoning, and development policies in effect at the time that the housing
development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency
proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be
developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the
proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial
evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact
upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the
- condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a
°specific,adverse impact" means a significant, unavoidable impact, as provided in written
standards, policies, or conditions.
(2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse
impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1),other than the disapproval of the housing
development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed
at a lower density.
(Amended, Chapter 896,Statutes of 1994]
65589.6. Action to challenge validity of project approval/
disapproval
In any action taken to challenge the validity of a decision by a city, county, or city
and county to disapprove a project or approve a project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density pursuant to Section 65589.5, the city, county, or city and
county shall bear the burden of proof that its decision has conformed to all of the
j conditions specified in Section 65589.5.
65589.7. Priority water and sewer services to new housing
(a) The housing element adopted by the legislative body and any amendments
3 made to that element shall be delivered to all public agencies or private entities that
provide water services at retail or sewer services within the territory of the legislative
body. When allocating or making plans for the allocation of available and future resources
or services designated for residential use, each public agency or private entity providing
water services at retail or sewer services, shall grant a priority for the provision of these
available and future resources or services to proposed housing developments which help
meet the city's,county's,or city and county's share of the regional housing need for lower
•. 79 cr V t code ���
S
r.�
5'
- - -7-_ ' - __- - _r .--t�:+.�- .✓. .-_ mss.
MEETING AGENDA
ITE -5-2-0-? ITEM #
Dr. and Mrs. Theodore Foster
748 Meinecke St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
May 15, 1997
Mayor Settle
Council Members Smith, Roalman, Williams and Romero
To the Honorable Mayor and Council Members;
We are sorry that we have to mite this letter expressing our continuing disapproval of and
opposition to the proposed building on Broad St. called the Heritage. We feel it is dramatically too
big and out of character with the neighborhood. We feel that the proposal is woefully inadequate
insofar as off-street parking is concerned. We consider the changes made recently in the proposal
to be quite minor and say that they do nothing to lessen our opposition.
We also have a philosophical point to raise here. The city sets standards and guidelines for what
developments are appropriate in neighborhoods. This proposal flies in the face of those guidelines.
The guidelines, although not frozen in concrete, should be firm and exceptions should be made
only for good reason, and likely with some compensating factor thrown in. We feel that there are
no reasons given to ignore the city guidelines and that the developers have offered no
compensating factor and that the only visible reason to approve this project is to allow them to
make more money from the project.
A final item also bothers us concerning a little history that we remember taking place. We
remember the father of some neighbors of ours staying in the present facility on a no or low pay
basis due to his fmancial hardship. We also remember he and others like him being moved out of
their rooms when more affluent renters became interested in locating there. We remember it
happening and refer to a story in the TT on August 10,'92 about the unpleasant situation. It
indicates to us that this developer is not interested in quality care for the elderly in its own right but
rather in maximizing his profits.
About a decade ago we remember some out of town developer trying to gain approval for a huge
out of character development on Roguet. After significant protest from that neighborhood the City
council rejected that proposal. After that vote a more reasonable proposal came along, was
approved, and is now in place. We consider the present Heritage proposal to be like that one. We
consider it grossly too large and with significant other drawbacks. We encourage you to turn it
down flat. And we expect that after that the present developer or someone else will seize the
opportunity to put together an appropriate proposal, it will be approved, built, and result in a good
facility for senior citizens and a continued quality of life in the present neighborhood.
Sincere1v,
_
FINDt oo&zc' �
C3 IR
17 FIRE F Theodore C. and Robei-WH. Foster
QpCLWO O POLICE
O MUT TEAM O f9ECDIR
FILE .-
C 13 UT1L DIR ��aa -
0 PERS011 REEC WED
- -��^•c .ems.
MAY 1 61yy/
CITY COUNCIL
Date: May 12 , ' '7
MEriING AGENDA
To: City Council and ARC DATE ITEM #
Re: Appeals - 61 Broad Street, ARC 158-96
One of the criteria the ARC and staff should ask themdelves before
granting approval is 113. Does the project respect history?" NO,
This project does not respect the historical nature of the neighbor-
hood where houses were built in the 1920' s. Another criteria is:
114. Will the project be a good neighbor?" "It should not impair--
directly or by the possible total effect of several projects like it--
the use, enjoyment , value, or orderly and attractive development of
neighboring public and private property. A PROJECT SHOULD BE DESIGNED
TO MIA?IMIZE INTERFERENCE WITH THE PRIVACY, QUIET AND VIEWS OF ITS
NEIGHBORS. . . . . " (ARC General Criteria,p. 17) . "The goal is develop-
ment that not only is well designed, but also "fits" in SLO." (p. 13 ARC)
This massive 35' tall or taller .building will. interfere with the
privacy, quiet, sunlight and views of the neighborhood.
A building of'.-this size is this old, established, historical neigh-
borhood will destroy the quality of life for the people who live
here and people who may live here in years to come. We are people
who have worked, do work and have retired in our homes. We also have
seniors in this neighborhood. Are you willing to "kick us to the curb"
to bring in 80 or more people who may not even live in this county?
We are not living in this neighborhood to profit from it. We are
trying to preserve our nieghborhood and the quality of life. Yes,
we need an assisted living complex in San Luis Obispo, but do we need.
it to rise out of the pain of our neighborhood. What about the seniors
who have lived here for 20, 30,40 and 50 years? , what about their
health concerns at the prospect of such a massive project destroying
their PRIVACY, QUIET AHED VIEWS?
The original builders of the existing buildings on this site took into
consideration our neighborhood and built to the rear of the lot below
street elevation on Palomar and below street elevation on Ramona. They
left the parking lot along Broad Street in consideration of Lthe existing
neighborhood and i b historical value. The existing buildings do
not take away from the R-1 neighborhood consisting of low-scale,
single 6t-bry houses. There are over 45 households who feel that this
massive building does not have a place as proposed. Broad-street
has been-:encroached upon by the Foothill shopping centters .: Now you
want our neighborhood to=:take another blow because_ we need-assisted
living in the town. There are ways to -.b.uild that are 'not 'so
disrepectful of the neighborhood and it' s:hea.lth a w e. . �
.._.._ . . COUAfCfI-. . LUi:X95;t
❑ RN DIR
❑ FIFE CHIEF
Jan ur1 �'��' ❑ PWa'R
64 r ad Street CLER:SMG ❑ POL.ICECIiF
uis Obispo, CA 93405= 4. ❑.�VWTEAM EFRECDIR
O SrREfiD FILE ❑ U11L Dlii-
v uQ -�c `fie
Si,�
-- `P C
I'AEETING AGENDA
tiECEIVcD ITEM #_._.�
SAY i 61991r.rry
"1 OF SArry LUfS O81SPO 79
w w
/�-v'•,, p�cw:;, &4i-� , 0—.4 9 1510.5-
a-.4
7�dy ly, 1917
� e.t�,..,,.. o-v-z` �C �.r•��.,,,oG:� gip,u�_ � moi(,, ��w�.n �c.a.�.:.-c.
,ti��2 Qr►y-p'e'ck- , 7�e ��r-�"�-G a.�'
7? f3. wd..w.� —
�-<-•r.•c
7-r-t
07
/�.?�z-cru .a�e-� �•��z'/�a� _ G...�.�.C/ -- + .0�.��2'�'�..`�`�`-
�n",e �,
qAo
❑ FIN DIR
-31W ❑ FIRE CHIEF
I Z#tLERIMMG ❑ POLICE CHF
El MQIWT.TTA:4 13REC DIR
❑ C READALE O UTIL DIP
- ❑ PSAs 0"+
07
/ pt/P�C,'•`rj /1.e�1 u.e�t.R-+.,7-��e.�� Gc.y `..`. /Z/k4yti.o0
o o7� _
-�-�., -�---yam � --" �- �,.�- •-- .
MEETING, AGENDA
DATE �'��� ITEM # 1i E C E IV ED
Dr. and Mrs. Theodore Foster
748 Meinecke St. UY 1 01997
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
May 15 1997 CrfY OF SAN LUIS oBISP0
'•••�1111Ry DE1�1(lnaacMr
To the SLO Architectural Review Commission(ARC):
We are sorry that we have to write this letter expressing our continuing disapproval of and opposition to
the proposed building on Broad St. called the Heritage. We feel it is dramatically too big and out of
character with the neighborhood. We feel that the proposal is woefully inadequate insofar as off-street
parking is concerned. We consider the changes made recently in the proposal to be quite minor and say that.
they do nothing to lessen our opposition.
We also have a philosophical point to raise here.The city sets standards and guidelines for what
developments are appropriate in neighborhoods.This proposal flies in the face of those guidelines.The
guidelines, although not frozen in concrete, should be firm and exceptions should be made only for good
reason, and likely with some compensating factor thrown in. We feel that there are no reasons given to
ignore the city guidelines and that the developers have offered no compensating factor and that the only
visible reason to approve this project is to allow them to make more money from the project.
A final item also bothers us concerning a little history that we remember taking place.We remember the
father of some neighbors of ours staying in the present facility on a no or low pay basis due to his financial
hardship. We also remember he and others like him being moved out of their rooms when more affluent
renters became interested in locating there.We remember it happening and refer to a story in the TT on
August 10,1992 about the unpleasant situation. It indicates to us that this developer is not interested in
quality care for the elderly in its own right but rather in maximizing his profits.
About a decade ago we remember some out of town developer trying to gain approval for a huge out of
character development on Rougeot. After significant protest from that neighborhood the City council
rejected that proposal.After that vote a more reasonable proposal came along, was approved, and is now
in place.We consider the present Heritage proposal to be like that one. We consider it grossly too large and
with significant other drawbacks.We encourage you to turn it down flat.And we expect that after that the
resent developer-or someone else will seize the opportunity to put together an a ro riate �-osal,
PPP h' P b PP P. P P
which will be approved, built,and which will result in agood facility-for senior citizens add a continued
quality of life in the present neighborhood. — -
�. Sincerely,
COtJPIGIL CUi:L";t
dcao ❑ FIN DIR
t3/ACA0 a FIRE CHIEF �le _
..
_
$�'ITIOFWEY ❑ pW Dlp Theodore C. and:Roberta H. Foster
CLERWOFiIf3 D.POLICE CHF
E3 kMff TEAM O fiEEC DIR
❑3 ii FILE D U11L DIR
l V — E3 PERS n"f
ATMy..., ;.
MEETINo AGENDA E C E V E D
DATE ITEM #_...
J. Mark Ropner P1AY 1 61997
721 Murray Street•San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 cfTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Residence:(805)547-1875 "'IrrV DEv`l r%
nischr
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Members of ARC
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
May 16, 1997
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
As long time homeowners on Murray Street and Benton Way, we are very
concerned about the impact this project will have on our much loved
neighborhood. We seem to have to fight hard to keep its healthy
residential quality. (i.e. the speed bumps)
Why is it that 77 Casa Street, which is zoned office has a height
limit of 25 feet? Why was ARC so concerned about the surrounding
structures in a neighborhood that has been almost totaly taken over
by commercial buildings?
The proposed building at 61 Broad is 35 feet. The MAXIMUM height
allowed. There is no regard for the folowing land use element codes.
LUE 2.2.10 (compatability with neighboring buildings)
LUE 2.2.2. (residential areas should be protected from encroachment
by commercial activities)
LUE 2.2.12. (Residential Projects should provide; Privacy, Adequate
usable outdoor area, Use of natural ventilation, sunlight and shade,
Pleasant Views, Adequate parking, and Design elements that facilitate
neighborhood interaction)
LUE 2.8.1. Large group housing, such as retirement hones, .should not
be located in low-density residential areas.
Housing Element 1.10.6 (Preserve the quality of existing neighborhoods.
We submitted 45 names to you at past meetings of the immediate homeowners
on Benton Way, Murray Street, Meinecke Street and Broad. -We are Ut.12iIMUS
in feeling the proposed facility should comply:to these city codes.
And, so should the city staff.
Thank"�you- for`your support,. -
�N(X-. ❑'CUG�i?l .
L�f"CAO.-_.- ❑ FIN DIR
Sincerely, n 6�CA0 ❑ FIRE-CHIEF
Q'TTQRNEY ❑ PW DIR
L l�LERWOR G O PCUCE CHI:`
A 'Y` � ❑ AJGINT.TEH?A O REC DIR
Mark and Madelyn Ropner ❑/C R_M FILE ❑ UTI!Df:?
EV
a:«. ter_ eeRP1�
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM i1E .
BY: Whitney Mcllvaine, Assistant Planner MEETING DATE: August 3, 1992
FILE NUMBER: ARC 11-92
PROJECT ADDRESS: 77 Casa Street
SUBJECT: ArchitectPral review of a new medical office building on the Sierra Vista Hospital
campus.
SUMMARY RECOMMEDATION
Continue with direction.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The Sierra Vista Hospital and the Sierra Vista Medical Associates are requesting final
architectural approval for a medical office building adjacent to the hospital.
Previous Review
On May 27th, the Planning Commission granted use permit approval for the project with
conditions. A copy of the Planning Commission resolution is attached to this report. The
Planning Commission allowed a maximum height of 35 feet to accommodate an architectural
feature at the roof line. Conditions of approval address parking, traffic mitigation, setbacks, and
tree preservation.
Data Summary
Applicant: Sierra Vista Medical Office Associates
Zoning: O
General Plan: Office
Environmental Status: A mitigated negative declaration was approved by the Community
Development Director on Februa 1992. i
Project Action Deadline: y `"-- 6
Site Description ,
The site is irregular in shape, approximately 9 acres iri size; and developed with Sierra. Vista
-.Hospital, .a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) facility, and'a residential fourplex. -The hospital
is licensed i:or 176 beds and also has out-patient facilities and a-meeting room with a 125-
person capacity. There are 327 parking spaces on site designated for doctors, visitors, out-
patients, and staff.
The site is mostly flat with the exceptioh of a tiered parking area to the north and east..of the
emergency room entrance. Stenner Creek runs along the-westerly property line. In addition to
the riparian vegetaiiQn.along the creek, there are a number of mature trees throughout the site's
landscaped areas. Surrounding development includes houses, a church, offices, and
apartments.
1
Project Description
The applicant proposes to develop a 2 story, 30,500 square foot medical office building at the
northeast corner of the site, which is currently developed with hospital parking and a fourplex.
The office building would provide roughly 20 tenant spaces, a lab, and a small pharmacy. An
additional parking area with 41 stalls is proposed along Casa Street. The fourplex will be
removed and the existing parking area and entrances to the site redesigned.
EVALUATION
With modifications, staff feels this new office building could be an attractive addition to the city.
Key concerns include.treatment of the Casa Street elevation, building entries, outdoor space.,
appropriateness of the architectural detailing, and tree removal.
Scale/Neighborhood Compatibility
Existing development in the area along Casa Street is low-scale, and predominently single story.
Many of the offices along the street occupy what were.once single family houses. Staff is
concerned that the proposed design - because of the building's height, overall square footage,
and minimal articulation - would not be compatible with the scale of the surrounding
neighborhood. The building's recessed windows and varied setbacks help to relieve impact on
the streetscape. Staff feels that more varied and pronounced setbacks and/or stepping back
the second story along Casa Street is still necessary to offset the building's length and
blockiness, and improve compatibility with surrounding development.
Building Access
The floor plans show only two entries, one at the southeast corner of the building, visible from
Casa Street, and one facing Deseret Place. Given the size of the building and the location of
available parking, another entrance at the rear of the building would be a good idea. Some of
the ground floor tenants might also like to, have individual entries from the building's exterior.
This option is difficult to evaluate, however, without a more detailed foor plan showing the
location of individual tenant spaces, the lab, and the pharmacy.
Outdoor Space
With approximately twenty new office spaces, a small pharmacy, and 'a lab, conceivably the
project will employ up to 100 people. Staff believes a private, outdoor break.area should be
included as part of the project. This could be accomodated.at ground level or4s an outdoor_
balcony/roof.terrace.
Colors and Materials-
The building's exterior finish will have the appearance of stucco. The proposed exterior finish
is the same as that used for the Boss building and the new Cuesta Title building. .The collors
would be a light taupe (grey beige) for the main body color and a darker taupe as an accent
color. The color of the roofing and alb minum windows would be a green_ teal. A color and
materials board will be available at the meeting.
Page 2 2
MEETING AGENDA /
R ECEIVED DATE 4-L/ ITEM
MAY 1 61991
cRY OF SAN LUIS oBISP0 740 Murray Avenue,
•RINrryDEVFIn0%4Ckr San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
May 19, 1997
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
As an owner of a house on Murray Avenue, which is in close proximity to the proposed
expansion of The Heritage(61 Broad Street), I am very concerned with the scale of the
project and the impact it will have in my neighborhood and on my home.
I am opposed to the size of the development due to the pressure it will put on the parking
situation and the affect it will have on our community. 1 urge you to protect our
neighborhood by limiting the occupancy level to 72 persons (or less) and by limiting the
size of the proposed buildings. The project will quite simply put too many people in the
area and irreparably change the character of the neighborhood.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely, _
OVOOMILt)'t;Uiiv6
ICAO ❑ RN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF:
David Platt ' t�DtER�SADs id_ URMICEwr
_ 13 ~IUM, -0 RFC DIR
❑ RE1D FILE
13 O U17L DIR
Id1EEIING AGENDA
D' - 20-91 ITEM #=
WILLIAM R. McLENNAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
RAILROAD SOLIARE
1880 SANTA BARBARA"SECOND FLOOR
- —' -- SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 —
(E05)544-7950
Honorable Mayor and City Council May 10, 1997
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street ,,..? tHp
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401 � CIANtRR
RAW .`�T 1RE#UW
L�rroRro�r o_PWDlR
Re: 61 Broad Street Project (The Heritage at Garden Creek) IcLE WAMIa D PDLJCE
(May 20, 1997) D AAGMTTEAM D AEC OIR
~'- O 0 MAD FILE -D UMLMIR
Dear Mayor and.Council.Members:.::. .:...:. ..:.:,: - —, �3 tscl�....
The appellants met with the applicant and came to a bas'Ic understanding on
issues relating to parking and density. The terms of that understanding are attached to.
this letter. This agreement was not finalized because ARC issues of massing and scale
remain unresolved. The appellants hope to build a"massing model' that will confirm or
dispel our fears that the scale of the project is too large and will destroy the atmosphere
of the neighborhood. Until this study is completed, no commitments can be made to the
applicant that an ARC ruling will not be appealed to the City Council. As such, the
negotiations were not finalized.
However, if the City Council accepts the terns negotiated between the
appellants and the applicant, it is crucial to understand that the terms of this compromise
are interrelated and interdependent: An occupancy limit higher than the density bonus
awarded to the applicant was supported because the neighbors were provided enforceable
provisions relating to employee and visitor parking. Unfortunately, the negotiations also
encountered difficulty when the planning staff opposed the key provision that requires
employee parking on the site because "it is not enforceable." However, without this term
protecting the neighborhood from employee parking, the agreed upon occupancy limit of
80 residents is too high for the site.
Why is it absolutely essential to include employee and visitor parking
restrictions in the Planned Development amendment? First, it is essential because this is
a unique and vibrant family neighborhood adjacent to an R4 PD zone. This
neighborhood will be destroyed and become another"Casa Street" if innovative solutions
are not created and implemented by everyone. Second, the history of this project
illustrates the need for written guarantees: When this site was converted from student
RECEIVED
MAY 13 W1
CITY COUNCIL
'Zon Ce
housing to senior citizen housing, low income seniors were provided apartments in this
complex,�When_the owner apparently needed more money, the low income seniors were
evicted. This issue went to the City Council but these low income seniors were not
protected because their inclusion in the project was not explicitly stated in the planned
development amendment. Such a tragedy cannot be allowed to happen again. (See the
attached documentation concerning this issue).
Is the "staff on site" provision enforceable? Clearly, yes. If there is a
problem, a neighbor can contact a manager at the Village or the Heritage and the problem
can easily be resolved because there is no dispute: compliance is mandatory. If the
problem persists, city or court intervention will easily resolve the issue. The
neighborhood is provided with an easy remedy to enforce in the future promises being
made today. Without this provision, the neighborhood will be flooded with cars, asis
Murray Street near the Blood Bank.
If the council agrees with staff and is unwilling to protect the neighborhood
by mandating that present and future owners require their employees to park on the site,
then appellants request the entire compromise be rejected, the appeal be granted, and this
matter be referred back to the Planning Commission so these complex issues can be
resolved in a more appropriate setting. For example, the developer can request an
additional density bonus by meeting the conditions of the Planned Development Criteria
and parking and density ratios can be realistically computed.
In addition, the appeal must be granted because the appellants were denied
a fair hearing at the Planning Commission. At the near midnight session, the primary
battle was over the planning staff recommendation that the age limit of the project be 55
not 62, as required by law before parking reductions can be awarded to a project. The
Planning Commission agreed with the appellants and raised the age limit.
Even with this victory, the appellants were not given a fair hearing on the
issues of parking and density because the data presented to and acted on by the Planning
Commission concerning the projected occupancy of The Heritage at Garden Creek was
clearly inaccurate (see page 4 of the staff report attached to this letter). The only
information provided to the Planning Commission concerning future occupancy at the
Heritage erroneously stated: "The assisted care facility (The Heritage) has 64 units,
each to be occupied by one person." We now know the project will be occupied by a
much greater number of people but this inaccurate data fueled both parking and density
calculations. The process should not be manipulated: a fair hearing with accurate data
must be given to the appellants.
If the Council is unwilling to grant the appeal, an occupancy limit should be
set consistently with the maximum density allowed on the site of The Heritage at Garden
Creek(72 persons). Unless there is an occupancy limit placed on this building, these
rooms can easily be occupied by two persons and the site density will rise to 12&pefsons.
An occupancy limit for this building is crucial because it is adjacent to the neighborhood.
If an occupancy limit of 72 persons is unacceptable, then it must be
reasonably assumed that in the future 2 persons will occupy each room. The applicant
was awarded a density bonus of 25% and is allowed a density of 72 persons on the site.
As such, the building proposed cannot meet density requirements since it grossly exceeds
occupancy limits (128 vs. 72). Because of these facts, the appeal must be granted with
instructions to design a facility that meets this limitation( ie a facility with 36 rooms) or the
applicant must apply for an additional density bonus to raise the number of rooms allowed on the
site.
Finally, the appellants are trying to protect a precious resource: a neighborhood
with a sense of community and a hope for the future. This project is welcome in the
neighborhood if it blends with the area and does not cause parking, density and scale problems. If
young families with their children do not feel comfortable living in the houses across Broad Street
from this project, then we have failed.
Sincerely,
William R. McLennan
1. The maximum occupancy for The Heritage at Garden Creek is 80
residents.
2. 185 parking spaces are required for the entire campus, with easement
rights maintained for The Heritage at Garden Creek. No specific
number of parking spaces has been determined as appropriate or
designated for the Heritage at Garden Creek at this time. If
necessary, the appropriate number of spaces specifically required
for residents, visitors and staff of The Heritage at Garden Creek will
be assessed and determined in the future.
3. 13 parking spaces must be designated and maintained on the north
side of The Heritage at Garden Creek (adjacent to the driveway) as
visitor parking. Spaces required for visitor disability parking for the
Heritage at Garden Creek may also be included at this location. This
parking area cannot be used for staff or resident parking.
4. Management and owners shall require all staffs of this campus (The
Heritage at Garden Creek, The Village and The Village West) to
park on the campus in the 185 parking spaces provided and not in the
neighborhood.
5. [An additional term, basically acknowledging the applicant's ability
to revaluate parking needs if additional development was prosed was
to be included but the language was not finalized]
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 4
above) indicates that the proposal to convert the apartments at 61 Broad to senior occupancy and to
add an assisted care facility to the complex is generally supported by neighbors and Commissioners
alike. There are few issues related to the conversion of 61 Broad Street. However, the neighborhood
is concerned about the design, size, and location of the new building, about density, and about the
adequacy of parking for the project. Letters expressing these concerns are attached.
2. Density meets standards. When the project at 55 Broad was converted to senior occupancy in
1986, staff determined (and the Planning Commission concurred) that the use was essentially "group
housing". Although individual apartments have small kitchens, two meals are provided per day in
large dining areas, and most residents choose to have their meals provided there. The project operates
like group housing and was therefore defined as such for density calculations.
Density in group housing projects is defined by the number of persons occupying the space. In the R-
4 zone, up to 55 persons per net acre are allowed.
!"Further, the project is entitled to a density bonus of at least 25%. Section 17.90.030D of the Zoning
Regulations says
L When a developer agrees to construct at least fifty (50) percent of the total dwelling units in a
residential project for qualifying senior residents, as defined in Section 51.3 of the Civil Code, the
Director shall grant the developer, upon the developer's request, a density bonus equivalent-to an
increase in density of at least nventy-five percent over the density otheilvise allowed by the zoning
regulations; and the developer shall be eligible to receive at least one of the development incentives
described in Section 17.90.050.
The City Attorney's office has determined that the project meets the criteria in this section, and
qualifies for a density bonus. With a 25% bonus, the total number of persons allowed to live on the
site increases to
55 + (.25)*55 = 55 + 13.75 = 68.75 persons per net acre.
Staff calculated the number of persons likely to live at the site, based on an interpretation of industry
averages for this type facility. The industry norm for married couples living in these facilities is about
eight percent. The Village currently has about 10% marred couples. Therefore, about 10% of the
one-bedroom units are occupied by two persons, the rest by single persons.
For 61 Broad, staff's calculations are conservatively based on an assumption that 20% of the one-
bedroom units are occupied by two persons. Calculations for 55 Broad (The Village) assume 50%
double occupancy for two-bedroom apartments and 10% or 20% double-occupancy for one-bedroom
units, based on unit size (one-bedroom units come m deluxe and standard sizes. Deluxe are
assumed to be 20% occupied by two persons.). The assisted care facility (The Heritage) has 64 units
each to be occupied by one person.
1
.. �.p.�., .�.,�.,. .. MEET'rZ GATE.
AIL City Of SAn LUIS OBISpo It -
- - ITEM PJJP,'ULR
C0UNC1La AGENDA REPORT
FROH: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director;
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PR
-- SUBJECT:
Appeal of Planning Commission's action to deny an appeal of the
Community Development Director's determination that a Planned
Development .Amendment, is not necessary to allow property owner
withdrawal from participation in a program providing rent subsidies
for housing in the senior housing project known as the Village,
located at the southwest corner of Ramona Drive and Broad Street
(55 Broad Street) .
CAO RECOMMENDATION: I
Adopt the Draft Resolution denying the appeal, and upholding the
Planning Commission's action to uphold. the Community Development
Director's determination.
DISCUSSION
Situation Previous Review
On September 16, 1992, following a public hearing, the Planning
Commission denied an appeal filed by Roger Piquet of an
interpretation made by the Community Development Directur. The
Director's determination was that the property owner of the Village
senior apartment complex did not need to file a Planned Development
Amendment in order to withdraw from a Section 8 rental subsidy
program that his been assisting some senior residents. The
Director's determination was based on a lack of specific (or
implied as ccntended by the appellant) conditions requiring such a
program.
At the Planning Commission hearing, the aprellant and several
project tenants spoke in favor of the appeal. The property -owner,
project management and several tenants spoke in opposition of the
appeal. The Fxecutive Director of the San Luis Obispo Housing
Authcrity noted a lack of approval conditions requiring
participation in a subsidy program oc provision of affordable
housing at the project. The Commission was concerned about the
residents that would need to relocate, but did not feel that
_ conditions of the planned development approval to establish the
senior complex (PD 1266) mandated the property's owner
participation in a rental subsidy program.
On September 21, 1992, an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision was filed by Roger Picquet. The Planning Commission
report prepared for the September 16, 1992 hearing is attached.
The report provides background information on the earlier planned
development approval and describes staff's assessment of the City's
',•r '�r - ■�'�!a• •.,P•.•1.~�- ...4.. V!�.�Jlti%'n.��'�: �r •:3'._ _1,1.. .al r:�V
:
Yaw •,.:' F': _ •�:':. ^i
...: ,.•.
._ .ho sinQ.
x�'", .OF.;:THE CITY 'OFSAN-LUIS OBISPO�r;, 1F{,�
,fi ° Flay • -f .� ".� n° '� '�' .:n u +(% 4 J. i :�i r (:•f: CI ^1!'� r .`,` .r ••c...�
n �J� T � >r ? '..'�l ti ; •i. rt f .. .7:, {'� L { e � J .r y+ � c
(:.�:�..�cif{L::�:••':...'-.Y;:�a'y."� ?�; :*'.4tY'•.c�'." �.r�'�"!".'Y•� }:T�� �9!i.�'a•,•[ 1 ,1,.
.+i�[-.';;.•: ..'r_..r•_r:�.' _ 'fr.�- 1.
r-
_ .rte '
487 Leff Streeti • P.O:Bos 638 : :San Luis Obis.. ,CA 93406 8051b43-4471
Executive Director-Secretary
George J• Moylan P D 13 6 9
December 9, 1988
FNM
Mr. Ron O'Dell DEC 12 TA
Administrator CrgdS ,tnONO
The Village " D "�"t
55 N. Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
We are in receipt of a copy of your November 14, 1988 letter to Ms. Elsie Glover
your tenant at Apartment No. 108 indicating that as of December 1 The Village
will only designate Section 8 units as being on the second and third floors.
Further, that letter states, and I quote directly, "This means that -anyone
currently living on first floor under Section 8 will be required to move to a
second or third floor unit by January 1, 1989."
I urge you to immediately reconsider this ill—advised, discriminatory policy.
Both this Housing Authority and the City of San Luis Obispo bent over backwards
to support the conversion of The Village from student to elderly housing at your
company's urging as a means to solving your financial problems. In 'return for
that support several promises, including the installation of a much—needed
elevator to service-the upper floors, were made. By and large those promises
have been broken.
Now you are attempting to bestow second—class citizenry on in—place, elderly
tenants simply to meet your financial goals. This is especially galling at this
time of the year. We ask you to reconsider your position.
In addition we feel what you are asking is illegal, a violation of your lease
with the tenants and the housing assistance payments contracts you have with
this Authority, and thus we will contest your proposed action in a court of law.
Sincerellyyy,�
�,P i ,
George J. Moylan
Executive Director
cc: Atty. Robert H. Mott
Achael Multari, Community Development Director
C
LAW cwricts
.. ., LYON & PICOUET
w"1[w wry:.n• 110. PALM S/wtt+ •4CMOM[
180%,e+.2580
— � "'^"'• -',rAlr., n0S* OIrIC[ DO[ 02S •r..tc0w,[w
S•N LUIS 00-SP0.CALWORNu 93406 rwov 543-28ST
RECEIVED
August 11, 1.992
aus I
�f0F
UNtt"s�
Pam P.i_ci. Asir Planner
Community lN-Velopmcrrt
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
Can Luis Ohi.tx•, CA 93401
-- Re: Regnirernent for Amendment to Planned Development 1266
('The Village.' 55 N. Broad Street)
Dear Ms. Ricci:
reprcunt a resident of the alwve-subject project who is very concerned about the announcement
by the owners to discontinue its housing subsidy program. As you are aware, the hbusing
progran; has been an in!cgral pan of this project over the last six (6)years. In fact, the number
of units under the program has been as high as 40+. After a review of the facts and
circumstances involved in the original approval of this project's conversion from student to
senior housinP, discussions with a City Housing Authority representative and my own research,
it is try opinion that this proposal is a significant change to the project and an amendment to the
Planned DLvelopment is required (along with appropriate environmental review).
The project, as described and presented by the applicant in 1986, included as a significant
component the tact that 21 units would he trade available for low-income seniors. The applicant
solicited and received the endorsement of the City of San Luis Obispo Housing Authority (see
Executive Director, Rich Chubrm's letter of May 12, 1986) in obtaining City approval. The
negative declaration environmental determination (ER 29-86) was based, .n part, upon the fact
that the rental subsidy program would be consistent with City policies to provide such assistance
programs to those segments of the population in need. Obviously, changing the project to delete
this canponent needs appropriate City review of consistency with the General Plan, Housing
Element, zoning ordinances and other policies and programs. I do not contend that this program
,= was the primary factor in the City's decision to grant the Planned Development. It probably was
s
Pam Ricci
PD 1266
August 11, 1992
_ Page 2
intended as a supplement to the basic concept of senior housing. Nonetheless, it was a
Signiftc= factor in the decision-making process and may not be eliminated without due
couricleratim..
Of course it would I e ir. the owner's economic interest to discontinue the program, but that
factor is only one to be considered in the Planned Development Amendment nwiew process.
The impact on out 0ornmunity's dmrvirg senior citizens, who moved to this project assured
of a secure home in their retirement years, is another. The City should ensure that the process
is followed which ailows a balancing of these factors to arrive at a Lair and just result.
I look forward to your prompt response.
`— Sincerely,
LION &�fPICQUET
Roger PicT et
RP:ts
cc: City Council
John Dunn, City Administrator
Arnold Jonas, Community Development
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
George Moylan, Housing Authority
l
1�vt"e�e -
r� •f.
h0L1SinC4 a«thoa�ty
ry �JI'� J' OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Ir
487 Leff Street • P.O.Bos 638 • Son Luis Obispo,CA9340C • Phone:(805)549.4478 • Foo:(805)543-{992
reeutive Director-Srcretury M t V t V t L
eorge J.Moylnn
Septem>t;er 4, 1992 SEP - 81992
Gm I Y OF 1,N Ws rscpo
Mr. Hick Neuberger P4WAJN1rY0EvEloPiKN'
Tllo Village at Sint
Luis Obispo
55 N. Broad Stem
San L.mis Cbispa, CA 934G°
r-n nick:
"Lou him_ aslxxl me to mspond to your r Yon to me of August 28 and the
.Yrarpxging l^.tter which you sent t,- Scxction 8 assisted tis at Thre Village
on Aurpist 27. First I mist apologize for the. delay in this response. The last
trn drys have herr extrm&y hectic with meetings and application deadlines.
This is the firm opportunity I have had to sit door and address your concerns.
-Tho letter of the 27th to the tenants bathers me, particularly in the light of
msubRa punt err"nta. specifically the tar of your letter is one of,"We heard frim
tha CAM's ClrmMity Davelopnent Director and he riled for us thus that's that
and yon had br!t:t.ns rtow". By now you know bet`ar, and I think you shaild helve
lacwn better it the time. The facts are sirply t1tit what h&.Q been raisnd is a
...planning di_,lamt:e which is subjer_t to Armaab to both the Planning Contninaion and
City Council, and then the Cants bey-nd that, if Atty. Pioquet, reprPsr'-nting
his nrtlthe r air+ resrhaps others, wants to Pursue the issue. Conversely, I'am
- -pretty sure t1vit if the Planning Commission finds for the Appellant then you and
yanr aamexship will appal to the City Camcil.
In short rel concern and that of the entire 11ousing Authority is the status of
bur clients. Thee Fmdors appear to be quite tvM with their current living
_Ar angerants, and at their age " nr- not lookup forward to any moue, despite
your efforts at making that move with as little disruption as possible.
-Thus I would ask that you and your ownership interests declare a six ninth
moratcsimm on the tenyd Ation of any omtxe:ts. Such a moritoritm would
hopefully permit the resolution of all appeala as well as a conclusion to any
legal action that aright be taken by either side. On aur part t o wand commit to
_ yutirnnirnq thr• contracts on a north-to-month basis, and I would be open to
vY-reasa_ your currant rent to the naxim;an Fair Market Rent. lbat's a departure
frau Federal regulations but I think we can justify such a deviation in this
particular cane. We shcuW receive new F14R's within a mattes of days as they are
to bo- effective as of Cctaber 1, 1992. Fran your perspactiv.' they will
cartainly not be a long-range solution to your i none street problems but
pe-1apa they would mala- the sic-month wratoritm period a little easier. ,
C
II..MII41.
i
An to 11te retraining thm' i1.r3m in you mato pint^.^ permit me to rf!F;ponl as.
f011a.e:
—I think we Ivive exl1lle;Lnd Ur. list of repl:ncsnrmt housing. I hr1V0 received
—a telephone call ami follow-up written descript.icn (attached) frau Ins
A!.-wm Senior Apartiannts in IDs Almrosc but I d7lbt i-f that's, of any
interest to your trmnts.. Asto discussed 13Pfore my exparienne with senior
— --citizens is that thry are li%ung where " am for a reason whidi i.e
usually brxsu3e thy/ .,pant rtnnt of their l ife in a cc m inity or they are
nr►ar their children or othrr relatives. This any =vrJtrnt, even from San
Lits Obispo to At�l.x;,x1 ero, bocales a iwjar dionq;t:ien in their lives.
--)t; to Mrs �:p;ire n only problem with t}r arrancy rmt is t`nc very hies
pprce nt.M of her weans thit she would bA Paying for res, aid teals.
!:-Lankly that.':; her b::iness tint it Would b-x:am our business if she was
w.Intin; cm a reguLtr contribution frau her family to make ends meet.
lhrier mi-ral lac w' would have little choice but to count that
ecxttrr*tirn 3s otosnad
, and thus charge her ditional rant.
—Yes, in my op nim yan would need to senrl fa mil 30-day notions to each
and every truant if y m intend to trsminatr_ tttri.r contracts. PhMayber
_ under the t.y7ticn 8 program we have a Housing Annistanca P is contract
with you, yen can terminate that Waitract but Ur. lease is� Xou and
Un tenant and that. Ir.•se continues until you terminate it. In the urtF -iM
you would hive to cr.11ect the full am u nt of the lease rent directly from
the tenant.
Sinverely,
G3crge J. Mlayl-In
Executive Director
cc: Fat SmAll
• l
AIL
7. City Of SAIL WIS' OBIS
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR•990 PALM STREET '
Post OIIICO Dow$loo•San Luis Obispo,CA 93-103.8100•$05,549 7111
.�9�_�SLMl�AZLQN
DATE: August 12, 1992
TO: Council
FROM: Penny Rap a
REQUEST: ,Qtuncil Agendize The Visage P.D. Chanoes
The article the T•T (see attached) regarding the notice to The Village residents with
subsidized rent, confirmed by a conversation with one of those tenants, I believe should
be looked into by the Oouncil.
Attached is the information from the P.D. file which discusses this issue as part of the
approval.
I request we place this on our next agenda to discuss.
Thank. you.
PR:cm
Attachments
COMESTO:
G'Dams 4eft ❑ FYI
m CGW%W WCDDDrrL
0 GO ❑ FK DI0.
Z-/A1CAO ❑ FUMCHIEF
CTATrODW 4 FWDQL
Z ammloRia U Pmjac3L
❑ MGMT.TEAM ❑ RMDIX
L�
11
TO: Planning Commission, City of San Luis Obispo
FROM: Nick Neuburger, General Manager, The Village it UE V t V
DATE: September. 16, 1992
SUBJECT: Participation in the Section 8 Assisted Housing "Program
scutive Summary of Decision Not to Renew Assisted Housing Contracts
Background
opicana Project of SLA purchased The Village on October 11, 1990 from
lley Federal Savings who had foreclosed on the previous owners. The
rmer owners were in bankruptcy with an occupancy rate of
proximately 50%, 17 of which were Section 8 tenants. Prior to
gotiating a purchase price we checked with both the city and the
using Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo to determine the
nditions surrounding the conversion from student occupancy to
niors. No conditions existed in PD 1266 that would mandate the
ners to house Section 8 persons. This directly reflected the price
ich was p,11d for the project.
1991 we Legan a very •:ticcessful leasing campaign. We have filled
e majority of the, complex and have had to Place people on a waiting
Today we hnvn 21 r;oarl.c on our waitinrl list who have signed a
rvation form an,l are prcrared to move into The Village. We have
been able to move the-.e people in because the units are cccupied
Section 8 tenants.
August 5, 1992 we mailed letters to our Section a tenants informing
em that we would not be renewing their housing contracts at the
ction 8 rental rate; a copy of the letter is attached. There are
fteen persons affected by this decision and their leases expire over
e next eleven months. The decision was an economic business
nsideration necessary to ensure the success of the project.
ease understand that we have not evicted any one and prior to our
tter of August 5th, I met with staff of the Housing Authority who
sured us that there was ample housing available. We are working
osely with the Housing Authority and we will continue to work with
Lr- tenants to help them find new housing. We have received an
undance of calls and information packages from complexes that accept
ction 8 tenants and whose managers are eager to have new residents.
recently as last Thursday the manager of California Manor in
ascadero called me and informed me that they had 5 vacancies and
uld like to send representatives to The Village to make a
esentation to our Section 8 residents.
A.L_ernative Housing Availabil,ey
I wanted to make sure that adequate housing was still available for
those looking. On Tuesday, September 8, 1992 the e e ram Tribune
"Apartments for Rentn section had 94 ads. Of the non-student
Complexes, 16 out of 26 called accepted Section a tenants. Houses and
condominiums were not surveyed, and they could certainly add to the
potential housing base if considered.
The brochure "Alternative Rousing Opportunities" for Seniors listed 27
complexes of which' 11 accept Section 8 tenants and 3 had apartments
that could be moved into immediately. While the others had no
_immediate vacancies they are likely to have a reasonable turnover.
—In short, on one day, we were able to locate 24 available apartments
for Section 8 tenants.
—We have nntablished that ad.guate affordable_ housing is available for
those tenants whose lease has expired. Now, what about the other
issues that need to be considered?
Imposition of Conditions Post Facto
The price paid for The village was baser] on its potential income. This
was a rnnscnablc? act because there were no conditions at the time of
purchase_ requirin, otherwise. To 7onsider this appeal is tc consider
imposing conditions post facto requiring the owners to rent to Section
8 tenants. This would change the values of the property substantially.
If wn examine the basis for Mr. Piquet's appeal, we will fine lielited
correspondence between staff member; of the Housing Authority and the
Planning Department. Participating in the Section 8 program was an
issue that they were aware of and communicated about. The fact that
they talked about it does not form clrc»nds a plan amendment as and this
issue did not appear in. the conditions of approval.
Additionally, I believe a egregious wrong is being considered. If you
believe that a condition can be imposed after the fact on property, are
._.you also suggesting that other for-profit complexes come under review?
What about hotels and food stores; shall we have a two-tiered price
schedule .for every aspect in our society based on the government's
definition of need?
We view this process as an Eminent Domain issue �. %thout due process.
In essence what has been suggested by Mr. Picquet s that, lacking any
condition requiring the owners to house people b..:ow ` ie rental rates
which they could otherwise receive, the government.: is imposing
conditions on the property without condemnation procedures or
compensation.
..T
Costs of Services Provideu
The real issue behind the petition is; should Tropicana Project be
required to provid:± services for compensation below their costsT It
is not logical to risk a private business to do that.
Subsidized food. Today The Village charges our Section 8 tenant only
$125 per month for food and utilities while the going rate for all
other tenants is $300 per month. we have continued at this rate
because we knew that the housing authority could not pay for food and
to charge more would place a burden on those affected. To the best of
my knowledge this rate_ has not changed since the project's inception
even though the annunt, and cost, of service has risen significantly.
For the period January 1, 101" through July 3.00 1992 our dining room
has cost an avernge of $302 per person per month to operate.
Other Correspondence
The officials at The City of San Luis Obispo have been aware of our
intention to discontinue participation in the section 8 program. when
The City required us to install a very expensive fire alarm system, we
asked for assistance on the financing in return for contracting to
providr housing for the ";action 811 program. They were not able to
make a reasonable offer at that time.
Additionally, prior to sending letters to our Section S tenants we had
L.,.meetinn with thr Executive Director at the Housing Authority and his
staff which confirmed our earlier understanding that no condition
existe-i requiring continued participation in the program. At that time
we informed him of our decision and set up a meeting with his staff in
an effort to make the transition as smooth as possible. -
Please understand that the decision to accept Section 8 tenants was not
one made by the current owners. we have voluntarily participated in
the program. Economic conditions do not allow us to continue to do
this any longer and we must act so that The Village is preserved.
In Summary
There is no condition requiring The Village to participate in any
Governmental Rental Assistance Program. Therefore, there should be no
action required to discontinue voluntary participation. As private
business owners, we have the right to make our project work. We have
made a great deal of progress so far, even amidst a difficult economic
climate. To take away our ability to be successful .would be to do a
great injustice.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT iTEra.1
BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner FF\ MEETING DATE: September 16, 1992
FILE NUMBER: PD 1266
PROJECT ADDRESS: 55 Broad Street
SUBJECT: Appeal of Community Development Director's determination that a Planned
Development Amendment is not necessary to allow property owner withdrawal from
participation in a program providing rent subsidies for housing in the senior housing
project known as the Village,located at the southwest corner of Ramona Dive and Broad
Street.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, upholding original conditions of approval
BACKGROUND
On June 25. 1986, Planned Development Amendment PD 1266 was approved allowing
a change in occupancy at the apartment complex known as the Villaqe (formerly called
Centrepointrl from students to seniors (a copy of approved conditions is attached).
Conditions of approval limited occupancy to residents that are 55 years of age or offer,
set a minimum parking requirement and called for creation of a formal loading area at the
main entrar^e. There was no condition imposed requiring a minimum percentage, or
—number of units, to be set-aside in the project for low income residents as rental
subsidies, or that the property owner participate in a rental subsidy program of any kind.
—Several current residents at the Village that have been receiving rental subsidies through
_the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program,administered locally by the Housing Authority,
recently were sent notices that their housing assistance payments contracts (leases)
would expire without renewal. The City and the Housing Authority are of the opinion that
the property owner is within his legal rights to terminate the leases of these tenants with
proper notice because ',ere is no long-term, binding agreement that a rental subsidy
program be maintaineo at the Village.
_ —The appellant, Roger Picquet, feels that, although it was not an outright condition, the
requirement for subsidized units in the project was implied by a reference in the initial
_ environmental study prepared for the project, and a letter received from the former
Housing Authority Director regarding the ability to provide subsidized units at this project.
He maintains that an amendment to the approved PD needs to be processed in order for
the project owner to stop participating in the rental subsidy program.
s
PD 1266 (The Village)
Page 2
EVALUATION
It is unfortunate that the current property owner, Pat Smith,considers that withdeawal from
_ the Section 8 program is necessary to help ensure the economic viability of the project.
However, while sympathetic to the plight of the affected seniors, staff does not feel that
con d tions can be implied where they do not exist. The letter from the Housing Authority
dated 5-12-86 (attached) discusses the ability to provide assistance to potential tenants
more-from a project feasibility standpoint(Will senior housing be successful here?),rather
than a contractual commitment to provide subsidized housing. The mere fact that the
idea of subsidized units was discussed with review of the project does not estAblish a
— projeet requirement. With project review, conditions may be discussed or programs
— encouraged, but if they are not specifically made part of the project description or a
condition of project apprcva!, they do not become an obligation of the project. In the case
of the potential rental subsidy program, it was not even an important consideration or
topic of discussion when the PD amendment was reviewed.
Although moving can be d"cult and try,ng, the Housing AO—.crity Director fee!s the
— alternative housing situations can be found for the affected seniors. .,
ALTERNATIVES
The commission may either deny or approve the appeal. Denial of the appeal would
uphold the Director's determination that a PD Amendment does not need to be processed
for the property owner to terminate tho rental subsidy contracts with existing project
tenants. Approval of the appeal would overturn the Director's determination and require
the property owner to seek a PD Amendment in order to terminate the rental subsidy
contracts. The commission also has the option of continuing action on the appeal if they
feel further information or analysis is necessary for them to render a decision.
REC7MMENDATION
Deny the appeal, upholding original conditions of approval.
Attached:
Vicinity Map
Appeal letter form Roger Picquet dated 8-24-92
Letter from Arnold Jonas to Roger Picquet dated B-21-92
Letter from Roger Picquet to Pam Ricci dated 8-11.92
Letter from Housing Authority dated 5-12-86
PD Amendment approval letter dated 6-30-86
ExcerptsT�om staff report and initial environmental study for PD 1266
At this time, thcrc appe• to be more than an adequate suppl- of housing to
accommodate thnsc stud. .s who wish to live in San Luis Ob. . The loss of those
unit: in the Ccntrcpointe complex will not Rave a significant impact on the supply of
housing available for students citywide. .
3. — I,ane1 jj! _: In many respects, the proposed chanrc in occupancy will result in a more
con,patiblc dcvcinpmcnt with adjacent properties than the existing student Housing
comple-cs:Scninr occupancy of the units would result in less noise and traffic-
—being gcncrated from the site. The location is ideal for senior housing because of
the proximity of tilt Foothill Plaza Shopping Center and Sierra Vita Hospital.
4. Density: The General Plan designates this site as tligh Density Residential which
allows 24 units per net acre. The subject site consisting of 7 acres has a maximum
residential development potential of 168 equivalent units. Existing.devclopmcnt has
a density value of 143.84 equivalent rinits. Project density was approved through
— prior planned development approvals, but also conforms with current density
_ requiremc• trs. With the proposed change in occupancy.of the Centrepointe Arrrtmcnts
—from student to senior, the actual number of persons residing in the comple!. would be
expected to dc�:rc3se since fewer seniors would occupy the same size unit a,. students
- -:.would.
5. ParGjrg. 295 parking spaces exist on site to serve both complexes. This number of
_parking spaces was approved through the planned development permit review process,
although a total of 329 spaces would be rcouired by the current zoning ordinance.
Parking dcficicncics in the area arc known to exist because of the concentration of
student housing. With senior occupancy of all or a porton of the C:ntrepointc
complex, arca parking dcficicncics will be ameliorated.
Students tend to have a higher occupancy per unit than other tenants renting the same
size unit. Most students also have their own cars. Thcsc factors often combine to
create a deficiency in available parking to serve, a development even though that
development may conform with minimum zoning ordinance requirements for parking.
Many senior citizens -to longer own cars and do not drive. In recognition of this,
the zoning.ordinancc requires less parking for apartment complexes that arc
exclusively senior occupied (1/2 space per unit or I space for each 4 occupants in
group housing). With senior occupancy of the Ccntrcpointe complex, there would be a
parking rcquircmcnt of 78, rather than 220 spaces. This would result in a parking
Surplus. rather than deficiency for the project site.
Technically, the reduced parking ratio contained in the zoning ordinance applies to
"housing occupied exclusively by persons aged sixty-two or older". The applicant is
requesting that occupancy of the Ccntrcpointe complex be restricted to residents `
years old or older. The applicant has indicated that the lower age limit was
specifically requested for those situations where an older, more feeble person had a
younger, blood relative living with them for companionship and assistance. It is
expected that these tvpcs of living situatiora will be limited and the bulk of the
complex's residents will be older than 62. Staff feels that the proposal is
consistent with the intent of the lower parking requirement for senior housing
contained in the zoning ordinance despite the technical dis.:repancy in the age
definition of the proposal and the ordinance in regard to "senior". The planned
development process allows for such variation.
_� ..
nU'3'�'3!':e..C.,•, ,:1'r. . tin h�' ` MIA%
. +r '.'•+r n
PD 1266
rage a
Since site parking will be more than adequate with the change to senior housing,
conditions have been added to upgrade the parking lot to contain the rcquircd uumbcr
_ of hen+::-art'c4 parking spaces and bicycle spaccxfor both complexes. Staff felt that
a requirement ror motorcycle spaces was not necessary for the Centrepointe complex`=
parking, lut given thr senior occupancy of that complex and the unlikeliheod of them
being u;cd. Such variation to normal standards is appropriate in a planned
development. The minimum number of motorcycle spaces would be required fur the 61
Broad Street Apartments.
Staff has added a condition that a formal passenger loading zone be created at the
front entrance of the Centrcpointc complex to assist residents. It is more
convenient for many elderly people to be dropped off by friends and family as close
to the building, as possible rather than having to walk from an available parking
space.
Al.TE*P.N.,TI�'�"�
I. Recommend that the council approve the planned dc%-clopment amendment subject to .
required findings and recommended conditions.
2 Continue il,e planned development amendment to allow revisions to plans or
presentation of additional information. Specific direction should be given to flit
applicant.
3. Deny the pI.-tnncd development amendment with appropriate findings. G.nial is a final
action, unless appealed.
OTHER DEPAR fMENT COMMENTS
The Public Works Department had no objections to the proposed changes in occupancy, out
is requiring an casement across the site for creek miintcnance and access rights to.thc
creek from Broad Street and Ramona Drive through the parcel map which is proposed to
divide the site into two lots.
The Police Department expressed a concern that senior occupancy of the Centrepointc
complex might result in increased calls for service because of property thefts and
complaints regarding noise.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fwoposcd occupancy changes will not result in increased service costs to the city.
RECOMME'NDA'TION
A. Recommend that the City Council concur with the Community Development Director's
negative dcclaratinn on environmental impact granted on June 11, 1986.
s
PD 1266
Page 5
B: Recommcndthat-the City Council applewc the planned development antcndnicnt based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions: --
Tindin .1
_ 1. Facilities exist which are suitable for occupancy by senior citizens.
2 The proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons
residing. or working on the site or in the vicinity.
3. Senior housing is appropriate ar the proposed lecation and will be compatible with
surrounding land u%cs.
4. The proposal is in conformance with the Gcncral Plan.
Conditions
1. -occupancy of the Ccntrcpointc Apartments shall be restricted to residents that arc 55
years of agc or older.
2. A minimum of 78 auto parking spaces and 4 bicycle spaces shall be provided on the
site of the Ccntrcpointc Apartments at all times.
3. A passenger leading zone shall be idcntif icd at the Ccntrcpointc Apartments main
entrance.
4. Occupancy of the 61 Broad Street Apartments shall not be limited to a particular agc
group or ;cgnicnt ul' the population (unrestricted).
5. A minimum or ICS auto parking space%. 5 motorcycle spaces, and 5 bicycle spaces shall
be pro, idled on tire site of the 61 Broad Street Apartments at all times.
Code Rcauircmcnts
!. The applicant shall post a sign which warns persons not to litter or dump waste
materials into the creek adjacent to each storm drain. Specifications for signs arc
available from the Community T)cvetopmcnt Department.
2. Five handicapped parking spaces arc required to accommodate both apartment projects.
Attachments: Vicinity :Nap
Site 111311
Initi: I Study ER 29-86
Letter from rcp-c-.entativc Reb Strong dat'. hec for A.R. Chubon
Letter from Horrs'ng Authority Executive '. ctor A
Lcttcr from area :csidcnts Harold & Bette '.ctzluff
Lam'
Parl:i.19 Calculatir:n Works gets
IJcwspaper article: discussing housing subruittcd by applicant
PR:gfm
MEHING AULNUA
DATE 5"2' U ITEM #
azo
paw 9� 1997
5"5- 6/
+t / aZy • Or
S
loodillilt /1"44
too
Sin,
.��..�, /960 • .
Io -�rC7 - -
J
HCIL
DIR
Cl FIRE CHIEF
9L0 PW DIR
OMVJM() ❑ POLICE CHF
° T"" ° REC MR RECEIVED
C FILE O IML DIA QQ ZZ ��yy
milYe: �IRW�41P�on
MEETIN AGENDA
Dl e- `i ITEM #
May 12, 19 9% CIL VUD DIA
GIF O FIN DtF
0 FIRE CHIEF
O PW DIR
Honorable Mayor. and City VFCLEWJMG 0 POLICE CHF ~
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo O MGMT TEAM .: 0 RECDIR 1..,
990 Palm Street
O C FILE OUnLOIR-111
_....... ..-San. Luis. Obispo, CA 93401. .
PERS-DIF3-
Re: Appeals --Senior Housing Project--55 & 61 Broad St.
PD 158 -- MS 157-96
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I wish to bring to your attention the following, and to
incorporate the contents of Mr. McLennan's letter and
substantiating materials as though set forth herein in
full.
First, in researching various building projects comparable
to an area such as the one .in question I found the
following:
1 . An office building for various doctors was built on Casa
Street in 1992 or 1993. Such building was initially
proposed to be built at a height of 45 feet. The developer
was informed that the area was RESIDENTIAL, AND COMMERCIAL_ ,
with various apartment buildings and office buildings. A
THREE-STORY building was not allowed for such offices.
2. Various office buildings were built on Palm Street
facing the County Court house, and NONE were allowed to be
over two stories in height.
W � C., 3. My question is this, WHY IS THIS BUILDING, JUSTBECAUSE
ne IT IS DEEMED TO BENEFIT SENIORS (Assisted Caxe Living)
�` allowed to be built ('THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT) in a totally
0, residential neighborhood? Again I reiterate, I am not
opposed to this building .for Seniors if it were two stories
in height .
4 . The City has Codes which I've previously cited, (LUE
2 .2 . 10 - LUE 2.2.2 . LUE 2.8. 1 Large group housing . . .such
as retirement homes . . . should not be located in .low density
areas.
5. Housing element 1 . 10.6 (goal) Preserve the quality of
existing neighborhoods. Clearly a project which overpoweers
the neighborhood does not preserve its quality.
6. Adequate parking is our primary concern, not only in
the immediate future, but the distant future. Staff and
visitors can cause many headaches for neighbors, the
Page 2
Heritage and Village, as well as the City itself.
As I research various projects, my understanding of. the rules
and Codes becomes very confused. Why are these rules and
codes taken so lightly in some instances and strictly
adhered to in others? If you can answer and clarify my
questions, I am ready to listen.
Thank you for your time and attention to the above
questions.
Sincerely,
FL NCE TARTAGIL
70 N. Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
543-3076
MEETING AGENDA
ATE S "97�TEM #1
-j
May 15, 1997
,-,),-City Council and
Architectural Review Commission
City Hall
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, Calif. 93401
Dear Members : Re: 55 & 61 Broad St.
ARC 158-96; PD 158-96; MS 157-96
Because of recent surgery and pending surgery, it is difficult for
me to attend your many meetings; hence this letter.
This is to urge once again that you look carefully at the number of
parking spaces planned for this new 64-unit assisted living building
(and for the other buildings as well) .
Reciprocal parking sounds good on paper, but in practice could be
hard to enforce and elusive. Also, visitors facing a long walk to
another area might well choose to park on the street.
Just last week an elderly woman on this very block needed the para-
medic?long vehicle twice. 40 'rhe second emergency (the only one I
observed) used a total of 6 spaces. A 64-unit residence could
easily have two such emergencies simultaneously.
During the experimenting with traffic control on Chorro Street,
many vehicles switched over here to Broad Street. A good percentage
of these fast-moving cars and have opted in favor of Broad. Backing
out during rush hours, with bumper-to bumper parking, and watching
out for seniors with canes, runners, joggers, bicycles, etc. , is
already risky, like playing Russian Roulette at times.
Please do not depreciate the value of our hard-earned small
residences and create neighborhood blight to enable one developer
to make his investment "cost-effective. "
RECEIVED Sincerely,
MAY I J 19YI G �
Helen M. Alexander
- COUNCIL_. 82 Broad
._. .. .-...-..�, re
--- San Luis Obispo; ¢a , 934M`_
cc - Both Groups
rs.= �a�•
CDWU Um
D FW DIFi
E03 FlRE CHIS- .
E' p pW DIR
O�FO ❑"POLICE CHF
TEAU 13REC DIR
❑ PEA.9 DI+q
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM # / San Luis Obispo, ca
— ' Aay 159 1997
San Luis Obispo, does:'nt have the kind of Care Facility, planned for by
the owner of The Village. We need this facility when disabled or in need of
a period of convalescense. To be cared for nearby would help in the healing
process to be close to home and friends. It is very stressful when a spouse
must be taken to Sea..Shell Community to be cared for. Too inconvenient for
spouse and friends to visit.
It is a much needed facility for our city that will be built and paid
for by the owner of The Village.
Please give this matter your serious consideration in favor of we Senior
Citizens and long time taxpayers.
Yours sincerely,
L y-
- O Ffh Ddb .
a
FlAECHIEF
RPO IR
Q U 71-1Yq.;
Pyr.+
-
_ . . RECEIVED
MAY t 19y/
CITY COUNCIL
- can. • - .._;.,on• re
MEE1 il AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
{�w7UNCk .L,:a
Honorable Mayor and City Council =1A 13 FIN DIR
City of San Luis Obispo FIHECHlEF
950 Palm Street t1k3
RNEY ❑ PW OR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 p pCUCECHF
Re: 61 and55 Broad Street Project TEW 0 FIECDIR
(THE HERITAGE AT GARDEN CREEK) ILE_} 0 uTiL DIR D P�RSro
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
With City Council approval, the Appellant are willing to
withdraw their appeals of, the Planning Commission ruling concerning
parking and density issues for the above-named project if all. of
the below listed provisions are added to the Planned Development
Amendment for this project.
The Applicant is in agreement with this compromise, if all
appeals are withdrawn and there are no further conditions relating
to parking and density placed on the project. Both Applicant and
Appellant understand the ARC ruling may be appealed by either party
and this agreement does not apply to limit that possible appeal .
1.. The maximum occupancy for The Heritage at Garden Creek is 80
.residents.
'l . 185 parking spaces are required for the entire campus, with
reciprocal recorded easement rights maintained for The Heritage at
Garden Creek. No specific number of parking spaces has been
determined as appropriate or designated for The Heritage at Garden
Cieek at this time. If necessary, the appropriate number of spaces
specifically required for residents, visitors and staff for The
Heritage at Garden Creek will. be assessed and determined in the
future.
3. 1.3 parking spaces must be designated and maintained, 4 of which
are handicap and 9 of which are visitor, on the north side of The
Heritage at Garden Creek. Spaces required for visitor/disability
parking at The Heritage at Garden Creek may also be included in
th-'.s location. This parking area cannot be used for staff or
resident parking. However, 2 spaces, if possible, will be added
for resident parking, giving a total of 15 parking spaces on the
north side of The Heritage at. Garden Creek.
4 . Management and owners shall require all staffs and residents
for this campus (The Heritage at Garden Creek, the."Village and The.
Village West) to park on the campus in the 185,-parking spaces
provided and not in the neighborhood. . .
_ SMA;
_ .CITV CtV.K
S-AN LU;S
2
5. Morrisonl , LLC and Appellants reserve the right to review
conditions 1 through 4 at any point in time once all the facilities
are constructed and occupied if they so deem necessary, or
appropriate for future expansion.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands in duplicate on
the day and year set forth below.
APPLICANT
MORRISON I, LLC
Date:
By
Tittle
APPELLANTS
Date:
William McLennan
Date: pZ T—
or ce Tartaglia VIV
Date: _—
Jan Scur—
Date: -; % 'j' �-7 —
Charlotte Moskiman-
4 _
THE VILLAGE ID: MAY 19'97 9:47 No .005 P.03
z
S. Morrisonl, LLC and Appellants reserve the right to review
conditions 1 through 4 at any point in time once all the facilities
are constructed and occupied if they- so deem neeeesaryt Or
appropriate for future expansion.
IN WITNESS WUHREOF, we have hereunto set our hands in duplicate on
the day and year set forth below.
APPLICANT
MORRISON I. LLC
by �- -- _ Date:
Ti a Gn -
6
PP T f� ,
Z2� Date:
EO �am McLennan
_ Date:
FForenae Tartagli a "— -
Jan�curi --- — — Date: _
Dotes
Charlotte Moskinan - —"'
MEETING AGENDA
Hamish Marshall DATE ITEM #
Development Manager
Smith& Company
555 Ramona Drive
San Luis Obispo, California 93405
i�
Councilwoman Kathy Smith ❑-CAo ❑ FIk oIR
990 Palm Street C"ICAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 O AIP04t1EY ❑ PW DIR
[J eXIEWQ=G ❑-POLICEC .
❑ MGMT-TE"M ❑ RECDIR
5/20/97 E3C!� FILE _❑ UT1LDR .-
1. ❑ PERS N.)._
Dear Kathy: .
I write to you in regards to the proposed Heritage at Garden Creek project, an Assisted Living
facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo. On March 12, 1997, the proposed
project was heard in front of the Planning Commission. A 5:0 vote to approve the amendment
was adopted by the Commission. You will recall that on April 15, the City Council voted to
send the project to ARC before taking any action.
On April 21, ARC continued action on the proposed facility. The ARC agreed, by a 6:1 vote, in
concept with the construction of a building for this purpose on this site and agreed with the
architectural style and colors proposed. However, the Commission made the following
stipulations:
1. The building must be set back from Broad Street the same distance as the existing
building at 55 Broad Street (The Village at SLO);
2. Significant landscaping must be added to the Broad Street street front;
3. The third story must be set back 40' further from the street setback line;
4. The appearance of the roof line must be broken up by the use of dormer windows
and other features, and
5. The building must not exceed a maximum height of 35'.
All these stipulations have been met. Last night, the project with the requisite changes was
reviewed by ARC for final approval. The Commission found, by a 4:1 vote, the proiect to be
acceptable and compatible with the adiacent neighborhood in its current form and design.
Additionally, the Commission found that the applicant had followed the direction of the
Commission.
With that in mind, the ARC continued the project to City Council with two comments attached:
1. The proiect was acceptable in its current form and design.
2. ARC would grant final approval if the City Council denied the appeal of the
Planned Development. t --
1 � .
IIIA
erre OLM.K
SAN LITS Oen-.=I.C4
Smith
5/20/97
Page Two
Tonight the project will be heard by City Council. The applicant asks that City Council members
follow the recommendations and decisions of the Architectural Review Commission, Planning
Commission and City Planning Department thereby den in the Plan Development appeal.
In addition please find attached a copy of an agreement signed by the applicant and three of the
four appellants agreeing to density and parking. We respectfully request that City Council
approve these conditions and attach them to the Plan Amendment.
Assisted Living is critically needed in the City of San Luis Obispo. The proposed Heritage at
Garden Creek will allow senior citizens a chance to "age in place" within the community they
love. This project needs to be adjacent to the existing senior living project(The Village) so that
their transition is easy and their friends are close by. Please don't deny them this opportunity!
Yours ely,
l
auris shall
4._