Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/1997, 1 - ARC 158-96: APPEAL BY NEIGHBORS OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVAL OF REMODELING OF AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING, DEVELOPMENT OF AN ASSISTED-CARE FACILITY, AND MODIFICATIONS TO LANDSCAPING. council j agenda nepoin °®N� FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community DevelopMent Director Prepared By: Judith Lautner,Associate Planner SUBJECT: ARC 158-96: Appeal by neighbors of Architectural Review Commission approval of remodeling of and addition to an existing building, development of an assisted-care facility, and modifications to landscaping. CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, thereby upholding the Architectural Review Commission's action approving the modifications to the existing building and site and approving a new assisted-care building. DISCUSSION Situation On appeal, the City Council approved amendments to 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 (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 multi-purpose room. The Council also approved the construction of 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 to be converted to a parking lot. The City Council left the approval of the design of the new building to the Architectural Review Commission. The ARC approved the design on June 2, 1997. Several citizens appealed that. action. Appeals of Architectural Review Commission actions are heard by the Council. Data summary Address: 55 & 61 Broad Street Applicant/property owner: Morrison I, LLC Representative: Smith&Company Appellants: Jacob Feldman and 67 others Zoning: High Density Residential with the Planned Development overlay (R-4-PD) General Plan: High-Density Residential Environmental Status: Negative Declaration of environmental impact with mitigation adopted by the Planning Commission on March 12, 1997. Council Agenda Report-ARC 158-96 appeal 61 Broad Street Page 2 Project Action Deadline: Action taken; appeals must be heard no later than 45 days after filing (July 27, 1997). Action on an appeal may be continued; no state or City law specifies when action on an appeal must be taken. EVALUATION 1. The Council is familiar with the project. A copy of the report on the planned development and minor subdivision appeal is attached for information purposes. The following paragraphs will specifically address issues raised in the appeal letter. 2. The appellants want the third story removed. The primary issue for the appellants is the third story on the proposed assisted-care facility. They believe the third story makes the building incompatible with the neighborhood. 3. The applicants followed the ARC direction. Based on earlier Architectural Review Commission (ARC) direction (see minutes of April 21 meeting), the applicants revised the building by setting it back 30 feet from the property line with the third story set back a total of 70 feet. The plans include two small third-story rooms set back 62' from the street property line, but the ARC felt that the applicants had "substantially complied" with their direction. At the June 2 meeting, that Commission approved the project with some minor changes. Some Commissioners wanted to see the third story set back farther or lowered an additional three feet, but the majority voted to approve it(see minutes). 4. The issue is one of perception. Throughout the hearings on this matter, the applicants and opposing neighbors have submitted photographs, drawings, and models to support their claims that the third story will or will not have a significant impact on the neighborhood. The different parties have charged each other with producing misleading representations. There is no absolute way to determine if a project will be compatible, because compatibility is at least partially a subjective determination. When the existing development at 55 and 61 Broad was proposed in 1966, there was significant public opposition. Now, however, the appellants are pointing to that project as "sensitive" to the neighborhood and a model to be followed by the current development. Similarly, letters from individuals over the course of this review process have cited projects on Rougeot Place and Casa Street, saying that the ARC required these projects to be reduced in scale and height. Both of these projects are built and are 35' in height, slightly higher than the proposed assisted-care facility. The new medical building on Casa Street is only two stories, but those two stories are taller than are the three within the Heritage, which is a residential building. Council Agenda Report-ARC 158-96 appeal 61 Broad Street Page 3 5. Efforts have been made to achieve compatibility. The site is in an R-4-PD zone, allowing buildings up to 35' in height, lot coverage up to 60%, and streetyards of fifteen feet. The primary difficulty is that the site is immediately adjacent to a Low-Density Residential (R-1) zone. Creating compatibility between the two involves making concessions to the lower- density zone. Typical concessions (as in Rougeot Place, Casa Street, and other similar situations) involve stepping rooflines so that the full height is set back some distance from the neighboring property, setting buildings farther back, using design elements that are more residential in character. The building design and layout include a 30' streetyard, a 34'-6"height (which is reached at a distance 70' from the street property line), and coverage of 38% of the lot by building. The distance between the new building and its nearest R-1 neighbor is at least 50'. The building is to be over 100' from the nearest house across the street. The use of hipped roofs corresponds to similar roof styles in the neighborhood. Design details include the use of varied smaller roof planes, windows with divided lites, plaster and wood ornamentation, and other Spanish- style elements, all of which lend articulation and interest and serve to reduce the apparent size of the building. The large setback for the third story means that from most vantage points on Broad Street it will not even be visible. It is for these reasons that staff supports the present design and recommends its approval. CONCURRENCES Concerns of other departments have been met with design changes. FISCAL IMPACT Approval or denial of the appeal will have no effect on the City's funds. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may approve the appeal, thereby disapproving the design of the building and all modifications to the site proposed. The Council should make specific findings for this denial. The City Council may approve the appeal by requiring, for example,that the new building be not over two stories. The Council may wish to set a specific height limit instead of a limit on number of stories. If such an action is taken, the final design may be to the approval of staff or the Architectural Review Commission The Council may deny the appeals but modify conditions of approval. The Council may continue action on the project. Direction should be given to the applicants and staff. �3 Council Agenda Report-ARG:8&96 appeal 61 Broad Street Page 4 Attachments �' - - ---- Draft-resolutions VicinityP City Colmcil:repor',forMay 20, 1997 Environmental initial study P , . .Y view Commission meetings Minutes of April 21 May 19, and June.2 1991 Architectural Re Letter of appeal 4 i SII` RESOLUTIONNO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURALREVIEW COMMISSION'SACTION, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ARCHITECfURALREVIEW COMMISSION,APPROVING MODIFICATIONSTO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND PARKING AND APPROVING A NEW ASSISTED CARE FACILITY AT 61 BROAD STREET. (ARC 158-96) WHEREAS,the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing on June 2, 1997, and approved modifications to an existing building and site,plus construction of a new building(ARC 158-96),with conditions; and WHEREAS,Jacob Feldman and 68 others filed appeals of that action;and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 15, 1997 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Architectural Review Commission Hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation, as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission; BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council previously, on May 20, 1997, found and determined that the project's Negative Declaration with mitigation adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council adopted said Negative Declaration on May 20, 1997 and hereby incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project: Mitigation measures. 1. Mitigation Measure: The Architectural Review Commission shall evaluate the appropriateness of the new building's scale(height,bulk and massing)in terns 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. 2. Miti¢ation Measure: Resolution no 1997 Series) ARC 158-96 appeal 61 Broad Street Page 2 conditions of both these review bodies shall be overseen by Planning staff during building permit plan check. 2. 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. 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 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. /-6 Resolution no 1997 Series) ARC 158-96 appeal 61 Broad Street Page 3 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. ph;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. 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 Promm• Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire Marshall. 1-7 Resolution no 1997 Series) ARC 158-96 appeal 61 Broad Street Page 4 7.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. 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 minimise 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 maximi 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. 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. Resolution no 1997 Series) ARC 158-96 appeal 61 Broad Street Page 5 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 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. l' Resolution no 1997 Series) ARC.158-96 appeal 61 Broad Street Page 6 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 Program Compliance with this requirement. shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff. SECTION 2. FjndLnLs. That this Council,after consideration of the Architectural Review Commission's action, the appellants' statements, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof,makes the following findings: 1. The new assisted-care building respects and will be compatible with nearby residences because it is sufficiently set back from the street and from neighboring buildings and is designed to n inimmP its impact from the street. 2. The project design is consistent with the City's architectural guidelines. SECTION 3. Appeal denial. The request for approval of an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action approving the project is hereby denied, and therefore the Architectural Review Commission's action is upheld,subject to the following . Conditions: 1. The final landscape plan must incorporate additional riparian planting within the 20' setback from the top of .bank, to the satisfaction of the biologist who surveyed the site and the Community Development Director. 2. At least two trees and additional medium-height shrubs must be added to the landscaped area between the Heritage building and Broad Street, to provide shade for the patio and help screen the building, to the approval of the Community Development Director. A variety of plants in a variety of sizes,including 36"box trees and 15-gallon shrubs shall be used. 3. Final design of security fencing and gates must be in accordance with fence height standards and to the approval of the Community Development Director. 4. Additional benches must be added to outdoor use areas, outside of required creek setback areas. /-/0 Resolution no 1997.Series) ARC 158-96 appeal 61 Broad Street Page 7 5. The patio at the Broad Street frontage must be eliminated or the building and patio set back farther on the site so that the patio is no closer than 30' from the street property line. 6. Colors must return for Commission approval. On motion of .seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolutionwas adopted this day of 1997. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Atto ey Jeffrey Jorgensen RESOLUTIONNO. (1997Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCS ITECTURALREVIEW COMMISSION'SACTION, TFiF.REBY DENYING MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND PARKING AND DENYING A NEW ASSISTED CARE FACILITY AT 61 BROAD STREET. (ARC 158-96) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing on June 2, 1997, and approved modifications to an existing building and site, plus construction of a new building(ARC 158-96),with conditions; and WHEREAS,Jacob Feldman and 68 others filed appeals of that action; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 15, 1997 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Architectural Review Commission Hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation, as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission; BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings That this Council,after consideration of the Architectural Review Commission's action, the appellants' statements, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof,makes the following findings: 1. The new assisted-care building will not be compatible with nearby residences because (Council state reason). 2. The project design is not consistent with the City's architectural guidelines. SECTION 2.Project denial The appeal is approved and the project is hereby denied. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT. the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1997. Resolution no 1997 Series) ARC 158-96 appeal 61 Broad Street Page 2 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: J,�1 City Attohi6y Jeffrey Jorgensen O O p O t rr. w p Ftp •i PF ° p WCC 0 ' ` C—N s R-4 ::;.. - LL - O O �O O D ! BLVD. FOOTHILL 70 70 70 71, M a.•�s �+tr _ •Y ✓IMS 1(.• 1.1 EE• y=V 1r y,f �w ! Y4•�•- r O t ` ~1 —` AIC P Wn I I.' R-4 �LL C L'_____. . p �- 0 o o ROU „ R-4-PD Nw '.,, .'.� r O O O lo (a n RAMONA i DRIVE 'tk•..y;;...y.:::yi:tit::•>}:;•::>;kk`: j? ::;:,'.,.xti;;,k:;:'• •M1':^}0 }:ick::}.. :.:.::..::.�..:::.}.�.ti.}:•>-::::..:: ,at} }: :•:': ;yx;'c{':'.; .:.�tt<•::•;::::tv'c:::ii:::<+:'a� •}r: : %:•.•:.'r;::,u:::•:.�'�'•.}:�k:�;+oii:«!iah.;?3::"wT;?%�,;%. x^•M1,�L:.<s:•t}},}::w}:}}}:c:M1,)M1,^E„' {w}>: ' �;'•iY:`:: :$!:'v;x}...:.. .uun. o.re Lil }•.�: i::;;:kx:<:; ;\::;,•r,;:;''.: "': .'•}•c}: ': 'ux;:}.'::x,<cS}i;; ..�" •':q:�:`•: ?:# xxiiCo••.-:;`..lM1.:}:;;c:tt f: :`;x . :,h'}"7 h''' xx• z� MSINJ6 >.:;:::>•:}:' .}':,^C.:.,::>::::: :: :::.:.}: ;: M1•. :•::c CICK.. MEI ui n4\:44'•x�v>:ti"i:�':.xit�•}::iixt• :ir J:•v.:v':�::i v::: vih$ i vim} x\ Q •ss •M1'i':xx:`•, $+:?,ti'�iiitt ('?i::.: :j`.:::•,.+::}::: �:: 't'�} v;.}.S%vV - I x,,� {.M1,.t ,:.^yw,R•.:.:`1:,4`.;11. }.rbc`{: '.• :•: ;:'=n3::::j :\•k•.,`,�•`.4�+,•:••{aS. i .. 1. : :, 16 �'M1}':j:xf,i;.vx`ex�kE`1ytF'`•i14 Y:;:4}F.n..:44v .M1••A.},.,4: ii}i]tf{x v �1• vtt Y• OO 3• }•-..:..} N.y2���5c cYx>;.y<�:> ;v2:5,�:"''fi� fi`}C•' ,,'`1,k,v,.. :'.y:•2 �j . }?':S+nx.::;::ri'.\=yi:t�S\.'..�ti^''.itiii.•}}::.:}.:... M1'kY},V,r _' _ 1 x<w.x::x:•.},ki \'.,:{ \:`yiti;;.ti:::.::ti:x:::;x'•. .ti!!• j[," 1 M ;i D- p p p ;r.:ri,.' ...i.�•xv ::•i}.{:'•::ty1:::x:'."'4 v ':•r.:1c,.i%ct�•.:.•.�i���•'�, ,,:M1,} \. � '!.eVr.-. ;, :::vx•}. :`\;x':'�1.C•Y�:v: 1:::•t.'`i `:'ti i:':t. }`v :.$:i`::;S)•':\yx.C?:}Ji •1r�..�L __ -_._ z vaq •.:};v1;,{,Lw:4•:. x1}.i.'M1.,• •)ti: `'`}'1'"`}' i}}:;v' 'A.:i. •1Y 't:tyt:4L {4'y{1'`}in}.0:} i p .�._ p x %W-. OG9T. k.,v{.:.�`•` {k• .;}••;:ti::>v:..v.3}v:,%•{.•v y ��}:v,.•,'.�`.: k{v tti•{•'£�`.} O R-1 O C .O.T.9C xxtiti:t.\:}hll{'itixv}x:t:hi{.:C4{x::.::{•, .v:.::. v' 1'�t: O o- 0 O $ ex,w +ex f 1. l•1 �R sH i : rim. _ -_-1 R�a O J V R 1 o a. -a MURRAY o �- �kar o,' iTtiO O I O O •77 A6/iR-1 WKC O p .. O O d . ,x ,d,.0 p \ i SERi2ANa DRIVE VE "` p VICINITY MAP 55 & 61 BROAD NORTH PD 158- 96, ARC 158-96, council ���D�• g acEnba izepoat FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director o Prepared By: Judith Lautner,Associate Planner SUBJECT: 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 development of an assisted-care facility on the site of the existing parking lot adjacent to Broad Street. B. MS 157-96: Appeal by a neighbor of Hearing Officer's approval of a parcel map, creating three lots from two, on the same site. CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolutions denying the appeals, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's action approving the planned development amendments,with some modifications to the conditions, and upholding the Hearing Officer's approval of the parcel map. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicants want to convert student housing at 61 Broad into housing for seniors ("congregate care"). They also want to build a new 64-unit assisted-care facility in the parking lot next to Broad Street. The Planning Commission approved amendments to the approved planned development on the site, to allow these use changes and new construction. Neighbors of the project, while in support of the use, appealed the Planning Commission's approval because of concerns that the proposed density was too high, the number of parking spaces too low, and the new building too large. The applicants also want to divide the property into four parcels. Each of three parcels would contain a building or set of buildings, while one would contain a parking lot. The Subdivision Hearing Officer approved the subdivision, but limited it to three parcels, each containing a building or buildings, to ensure that the City would be able to retain the ability to say no to any further development of the site. A neighbor appealed this decision because of concerns that the new building might be later sold along with the parking spaces that are on that site, and the number of spaces does not appear adequate for the use. Staff, the Planning Commission, and the Architectural Review Commission are satisfied that the parking and density proposed is appropriate for the site, however it is calculated. To relieve some neighbors' concerns staff is offering conditions that limit the number of occupants and that specify exactly what uses are allowed on the site. The ARC has given specific direction for revisions to the design of the.new building, and has indicated that if that direction is followed, �s Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 2 the plans will be approved. Staff therefore recommends denial of the appeals and adoption of resolutions approving the planned development amendments and the parcel map, with or without suggested added conditions. DISCUSSION Situation The Planning Commission approved amendments to 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 (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 multi-purpose room. The Commission also approved the construction of 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 to be converted to a parking lot. Four citizens appealed the Planning Commission's action. The City Council first heard the appeals on April 15, 1997, and continued discussion to May 20 to allow the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to review revisions and forward its recommendation to the Council. The Hearing Officer approved a parcel map, allowing division of two existing parcels into three. Each parcel would contain one of the "campus" buildings: The Village (55 Broad), 61 Broad, and The Heritage. One citizen appealed the subdivision. This is the fust hearing on that appeal. Data summary Address: 55 & 61 Broad Street Applicant/property owner: Morrison I, LLC Representative: Smith& Company Appellants: William McLennan, Florence Tartaglia, Charlotte E. Moskiman,Jan Scuri Zoning: High Density Residential with the Planned Development overlay (R-4-PD) General Plan: High-Density Residential Environmental Status: Negative Declaration of environmental impact with mitigation adopted by the Planning Commission on March 12, 1997. Project Action Deadline: Action taken; appeals must be heard no later than 45 days after filing (May 2, 1997 for the planned development, May 23 for the subdivision). Action on an appeal may be continued; no state or City law specifies when action on an appeal must be taken. Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 3 _ EVALUATION The Planned Development amendments 1. The Council's focus was on the building's size. At the April 15 hearing, the discussion focused on density, parking, and building scale. It appeared that councilmembers had resolved concerns about density and parking. However, later paragraphs in this report will address these issues, in case there are still questions. Appellants are anxious about parking arrangements. Staff has attempted to address their concerns with additional suggested conditions. The Council continued action on the planned development specifically to allow the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to review modifications to the plans. The ARC reviewed the changes on April 21. Overall (see minutes, attached), the Commission agreed 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,with specific direction 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, • break up the roofline appearance by use of dormers and other features; • maintain a maximum height of 3S The ARC is expected to review the revisions made in accordance with this direction on May 19. Results of that hearing will be provided to the Council at the May 20 hearing. It is expected that if this direction is followed, the ARC will approve the design. Staff recommends that the Council concur with the ARC's direction. 2. Density revisited. Allowed density was calculated several ways for this development. The Planning commission felt comfortable with the density proposed, based on the staff analysis. The appellants are concerned about the potential for rooms to be doubled up and the "population density"to exceed that allowed for group housing. Density for a project of this type can be calculated in terms of persons per net acre, or in terms of dwelling type. In either case, as explained in the previous report, a density bonus equal in value to at least 25% over the base density must be granted automatically for projects occupied exclusively by seniors. Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 4 Persons per net acre: In the R-4 zone, up to 55 persons are allowed per net acre. The minimum 25% density bonus would increase this number to at least 55 + 25% (55) = 68.75 persons per net acre. 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: .97 acres Density allowed: .97 acres X 68.75= 66.69=67 persons Total allowed on these three lots:83+232+67= 382 persons Alternatively,density can be calculated on the entire site,without regard to individual parcels.The planned development can allow shifting of density from one parcel to another. Using the whole site: (four parcels) 0.78 + 1.22+.97+3.38=6.65 acres 6.65 acres X 68.75=457.19=457 persons allowed Staff has made some assumptions about occupancy to compare the proposed with the. allowed. Those assumptions are based on industry standards, and assume that most rooms are occupied by single persons. The assumptions and calculations are attached to this report. The conclusions are that the maximum number of persons expected to live at the site is: 61 Broad: 70 persons 55 Broad(The Village): 164 persons The Heritage: 64 persons Total: 298 persons These numbers meet the density requirements. The appellants are concerned, however, that operators may want to double up all rooms and that the actual occupancy could be much /8 Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 5 higher. If the Council shares this concern, it may set an occupancy limit on the project. Staff suggests the following limits,based on the area of the proposed individual lots: 61 Broad: 83 persons 55 Broad: 232 persons The Heritage: 67 persons These numbers reflect a density bonus of no more than 25%. The Council may choose to allow greater occupancy, which would still be consistent with density bonus provisions. Alternatively, a limit could be set on the entire "campus", allowing operators.-to shift residents from one building to another without affecting the limit. In this case, staff recommends a limit for the entire site of 83 +232+67=382 persons. If the Council wishes to set an occupancy limit, staff suggests the following condition be added: Occupancy::of the entire site slialT_.be mite to..a maximum of382 residents—.-- I ie 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;tnme of day and shall be preceded by a one-hour notice to the management To be sure that. owners will be aware of this restriction,.an agreement 71nust 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 ogoperate to.retain occupancy at or below the limit. Units per net acre: Density can also be calculated based on the number of dwelling units. In the R4 zone, up to 24 "dwelling units" are allowed per net acre, where a two-bedroom dwelling is one dwelling unit, a one-bedroom is 0.66 unit, and a studio apartment 0.5 unit. With the 25% minimum density bonus, this number increases to at least 30 units per net acre. 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: 122 acres @ 30 units/acre= 36.6 dwelling units 55 Broad: Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 6 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 studios @ 0.50=32 dwelling units Allowed: .97 acre @ 30 units per net acre=29.1 dwelling units The density proposed,based on unit counts, is under(55 Broad)or slightly above (61 Broad, the Heritage)that allowed with a 25%density bonus. It is therefore consistent with density bonus provisions, because a bonus slightly in excess of 25%is consistent with bonus provisions. 3. Parking concerns. Some neighbors continue to be concerned about the amount of parking on the site. These concerns appear to take two forms: Parking associated with buildings. Some neighbors are worried that if the site is subdivided and some or all of the parcels sold, that only the parking actually on the same parcel as the building will be available for residents, staff, and visitors. The reciprocal easements that will be required of the applicant prior to final map approval will ensure that all parking on the site is available for all uses,regardless of changes in ownership. The easements will be recorded and will not be changeable without permission from the City. Parking some distance from the use. Some residents wont'that if many employees park close to the new building that visitors and residents may choose to park on the street. They are concerned that the additional parking on-site is too far from The Heritage for its use to be encouraged. The applicants are willing to designate spaces for employees,primarily in the tennis court site. The Council may want to make this arrangement a condition of approval. Staff suggests,in this case, a condition: • Employees 8h,C'b&iequ4!!d.to park in the lot,closest toPalomar;and spaces closest to the.bmldings shall be designated for visitors and residents,as well as for requued ewer enc access. It appears that, for the most part,neighbors (including the appellants)are less concerned about the number of parking spaces provided on site than about where those spaces are. Some have asked,however,that the occupancy limit be related to the number of spaces provided. There is a difficulty in making a clear correlation between the number of persons on-site, if Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 7 an occupancy limit it imposed, and the number of parking spaces provided,because the only place where such a correlation is made in the zoning regulations is in the "group housing" section(unless the entire project is considered a"convalescent hospital", which is not a particularly good classification, and occupancy is based on the number of beds. Calculations based on this assumption are set forth below.) For group housing uses, such as fraternities or sororities,the parking requirement is 1.5 spaces per bedroom or one parking space per 1.5 residents. The parking requirement for senior housing,however, is based on the number.of dwelling units, not on the number of residents: one-half parking space per dwelling unit(as compared to approximately two spaces per dwelling unit for a non-senior housing project). A calculation of parking based on the City's group housing requirement would overstate the requirement.Therefore, it is more appropriate to calculate the parking requirement based on the types of units: 61 Broad: 59 units @ 0.5 spaces per unit = 29.5 spaces guest/staffparking @ 1/5 unit = 11.8 spaces 55 Broad: 128 units @ 0.5/unit = 64.0 guest/staffparking @ 1/5 unit = 25.6 The Heritage: 32 dwelling unit @ 0.5 spaces/unit = 16 spaces guest/staff@ 1/5 units = 6 spaces TOTAL: 153 spaces TOTAL provided: 182 spaces RECOMMENDED: 180 spaces The Convalescent Alternative: An alternative calculation can be made if one assumes that the entire project is a convalescent home, or similar to a convalescent home. The parking . requirement for convalescent homes is one space per four beds. If the occupancy limit is assumed to be the number of total beds available,then the parking requirement would be (assuming an occupancy limit of 382 residents for the entire site): 382 /4=95.5=96 spaces which is well under the 180 required. The recommended total requirement for 180 spaces exceeds the estimated per-unit requirement by 27 spaces. All of the parking spaces would be available for all of the buildings on site, except that some are proposed to be designated for employee use only. Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 8 Both the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission felt the parking would be adequate for the uses proposed.The number of spaces and their locations were not a concern for either Commission. Some of the appellants are concerned that the calculations above will be taken as the parking requirement,rather than the 180 spaces recommended. If this is a concern of the Council's, it may choose to divide the requirement by use. In that case, staff suggests the following modification to recommended condition no. 2: 2. A minimum of 180 parking spaces,9 bicycle spaces,and 9 motorcycle spaces shall be provided on the site at all times. &minimum of 48 spaces are required for the prglect at bl Broad, 106,spaces are ie fired for SS Broad. a Village and 26 9u . e ), ., _. spaces are required for Ilie 14"ae 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. The parcel map. 4. The parcel map.A neighbor(William McLennan)appealed the Hearing Officer's action on the parcel map for this site. The applicants wanted to divide two existing parcels into four. The Hearing Officer approved a division into three instead. Mr. McLennan appealed this decision because of his concerns about the possible sale of the new building (The Heritage) on its own lot. See the attached letter of appeal for details. The primary issue appears to be parking. Mr. McLennan believes that if the lot containing the Heritage were sold, then only those.parking spaces actually on the site would be available to residents of the facility, and visitors and some staff may be forced to park on the streets nearby. As pointed out in previous reports (and above),the parking on all lots (whether two, three, or four) will be controlled by a recorded easement(see subdivision condition no. 8, attached). The easement will require that all spaces be made available for the use of residents, staff, and visitors of all buildings. If one or all of the parcels is sold,the easement will remain and nothing will change. It will not be possible to amend or eliminate this easement without approval by the City. The applicants wanted to divide the property into four parcels, for financing purposes. The Hearing Officer instead approved the division into three parcels. The Hearing Officer was concerned that if a fourth parcel were created,with no building on it, then that parcel would be automatically conferred development rights. The City would be in a position to define what could be built on the parcel, but would not be able to deny development outright. By approving three parcels, each of which would contain one or more approved buildings,the Hearing Officer reserved the decision on whether further development of this large site is appropriate to a time in the future. This action allows the City to observe and evaluate the effects of the Heritage on parking, before considering any further development plans. l� Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 9 5. Some minor modifications. The appellants have indicated that they are concerned that the project may change from its proposed configuration to some other use in the future. The project application is for an amendment to allow senior housing ("congregate care")and assisted-living, as shown on project plans and specifications. Any change to the physical appearance or to the use itself will require approval of another amendment to the planned development.No specific conditions are necessary, but staff offers the following condition to alleviate concerns by those less familiar with planning process: Tfns_approval useszi 55'and'"b1;Broad Street;=congregatecare forsemors The,Heritage,:Assisted=living for`seruos as specified in project plans approved through thus planned development amendment process, and.as approved on buildirigplaris 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:eliininate the p planned development lus whateve..r process is required for thie type of use poposed. CONCURRENCES Concerns of other departments have been met with design changes. FISCAL IMPACT Approval or denial of the appeal will have no effect on the City's funds. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may approve the appeals,thereby denying the amendments and the parcel map. The building at 61 Broad would continue to be used for student (or all-age) housing. Construction of another building on the site would require approval of an amendment to the Planned Development or modification to the zoning on the site to eliminate the Planned Development overlay. The Council may deny the appeals but modify conditions of approval. Modifications might include a requirement for additional parking spaces, a maximum occupancy for the site, or other changes. The Council may continue action on the project. Direction should be given to the applicants and staff. /;2 3 Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 and MS 157-97 appeals 61 Broad Street Page 10 Attachments Draft resolutions Suggested added conditions Vicinity map Planning Commission report Environmental initial study Minutes of March 12, 1997 Planning Commission meeting Minutes of Subdivision hearing April 4, 1997 Director's Action approving subdivision Minutes of April 21 Architectural Review Commission meeting _ Letters of appeal Government code excerpt: Section 65589.56) 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 S. 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 ��s I►1�����1►��IlNllllllf�ll� pll��►�IIIII 11111 III I city Of SAn JUTS OBISP&aim 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. 9. 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 'N,..: 'L�:;: c'>'..: y X Air Quality : S::#h �:.: TK^iR'? kfiU>e,(.xVj .,.pfd`:j} Y.3ti�},'+ (:\w:v. a tY X Public Services <�; �:�;.��y �a: �� �•• � �' �.�2`RE X Transportation and , ..CK v r..,. P X Utilities and Service . MIN Circulation Systems h:: Y F-1 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. ElThe 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: 1 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. 1 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 (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially.Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must InO 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 CEQA 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. A /�d� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pountiariy Potentially I=Than No Sigufiaant Significant Significant Impact ER 158-96 Fees Unless Imps Page 5 mitigation Incorporated t: AN.CjsUSEAND PI,gNNING"' o }$$ .c „uu)th..-ge at pianxteslgna igri>aY:zonis"?;< #si Cbnfidt It ';g dnvrroYtitt3ental'ptaps or policies' 1,2 X ed b a enaes Zvi 3” " "� ::>a:r.. adapt::': ,.Y,.,.9.., tF ,lurrsdiiitran.ovgrYthe;piq�ect23__: X < 2$ r S a7 fs}s }i.' Be�rxcorrspatible vkrcx,exrsttrlgancEseJse rnr t�)i� viiniity? X . d} RffgEiagnculxprael" i�t�ourpes oE:oparatrgns Ee g (mpect YfaFmla >< >;..o p aact ..: 4... f".............:f<: >s$x>xa soils t'Y' ):dW �=:gym ac#s=;: a ib P. ;`frarr�<<mcg t Ie g: X xY!ii}}:x>}}:.,::$•::$5:i ".3g;Y::': ,. is S., .:{iY::: l$::.>,a {..•. :3:ii::Yi. ..i.. isj:.' <<}.,}.:.:'�xa}::}.Y:}}:•:<::o:o:;.�;::2:.,3:::'x} { , : iii:�iS::],:. eI RisfuRt;$:fir, tjtvtde`< �lA P...gsiC,al' grfangeme v $a n of n estab'Itshecj' '.c0MI iunity baclu'din� fa> ld�nr'rncccme' or X :mmol mm General plan policies relevant to the request are discussed in the following paragraphs: _ Housina 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 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant siPMCZnt Impact ER 158-96 Issues Unless Impact Page 6 uutigatron Incorporated 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-family 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 be as 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; /-30 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially .Potentially Less Than No significant Significant Significant Impact ER 158-96 . I=es Unless impact raitivuion Page 7 In orpom d 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.) 1. 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 amuL 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 sources Potentially Potentially Less'Iban No significant significant significant Impact ER 158-96 Lssva unless Impact mitigation Page 8 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 Soace Element (Policy OS 3.2.3 B General Plan Digest) 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, rion-native plants (such as Vinca maior and Eucalyptus) within creek corridors or cieek 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> :POP.ULATION:AND•:HOUSING.. Wouldthe:proposal a1 Cilmulabv......zCeed:officiol regional or local population project�ons� X substantial growth art an area:.eitEler.,direc:LTy.ot: tndtrectl (e g through proaects Irl art undeveloped area X' o) 1)aspfiAt a exlstirtg housing,; espet rally affordable 1,3,4 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 0 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially L.emnan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 158-96 Issues Unless Innpact 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. 3 GE0LOGIGPR0BLEM5 P g.. ... W.ourdahe proposal result'm ore` ose; edp)e'.to:pofential ten acts:ali5olvin a} 'Fault rupture} 5 X b) Setsrntc ground shaking7 „ »........;.. 6 X : :..:::;]......:..................... c) :.:Seis[ric.gcoundfailure; mcludiri'g?.Jiquefactions> 6 X dj Selche, isunamt flr vo[canlc°haia�cf� X .....I......... ar.mudflovvs 6 X f} Eroston,_r harig:es to Ygpggraphy qr unstable soil 6 X »s:condrtlons horn:excavation >i"ra:8iri""`°`or fill:? >i:' a € 9 g, �} Subsidence of the land X h x 'art .ty ::: ils,._ :i:<:......:<»§:::>;;:::>:::::::::::<:;:: :< : > 6 p stve..sotls 6 .....:.............................::]:]:::.;:::::;;:;:;]::>;:::]:::]]]::;::::::::::]::::::.::>:];;::;;:::..• X ) Untque'geologtc:orPhysical€features?i > > ?;.;s>;:;;:_>:<:::::<::::;:::: 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. TER Woul.d.;the:pro osalresult to :........... :..... aI­Xti tr1 absorption rates drarnage patterns, or the 2 X rate artcfarrloarrt of surface runoffr b)' Exposure,of people o..pro.. 171r 2a.watgt related...;.; /-33 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources potentially Potentially IusThan No Significant Significant Significant lmpact ER 158-96 Lnues Unless knPact Page 10 mitigation Incorporated ........::... ...:..:.:...,..:..:.:..;:...::................J:n]:ii:k:;::k:Ei;::k:.::::::]';lk:::;:";::.`};:::::k:i:::::ii:::::::::'ii>i li.:................:;......:.... haiards such asnorlrtg�, i 7 X cJ> Discharge into surface v�raters'Qr ntner alterstmn W .. . .:i'S::iEE>.�i5ilfrE:: E:; ;; isuface'!vateg,.guaLtyr:(eg';aempecature >:disso[ved<>«;:a::;:;>: pxygen oK tvfbtdrtY�i X C#IangesiiitBi'earioun of :::.:oi]}f:]:-i:::a5 ":i..:,:):, ,.:,,.,<}:,.,,.:..:. y k surface water m any>water= f ' X. >] 5 }a'f i ;N} 5 j} i k>�] i ]i t>r•] , , f ?. p <� nges to curcerttsr qr i�Ie course or direction of water' ................ rrtnvements7} ' >' f";<.. r1 /may w X 11 = la1L�n G to f f= ? �]T k i i 5= i,.{ _ , 5:. >y E =#,i., ki t k5 g the quantity groursd waters ,eithlit .. ............ 5 Sil tE:N.__:...,:,;uf+iE:.S, .i]5:'::':: ':' : :::.:.::�i]........Si }: .,:. :. iFitO i::.ft.: .... ug. .dtPectaidcUas of wttTuirawals .ar.<#:cou h,;s<-;:>5 : „s.+.E]S „g.. v .,.;.......:<.. 5::.. .......:::::.:.::f.::.::a::: tnterceptron:.o :art:a utter;b. a>uts. r: eiceavatt :::>a:< :«_. �!::.:,; . .. X tliioilgti;'substantla. Ioss of groui�dwrater>eCha�ge]i ,° ',.. i 9}' ,4ltere�d;dtreCtion'or.......... offlow Pf i9r0Undwater� = X h} Impacts to Qroundwater quality;! X t) Substahtfal t•eductton tn'f1'e amount of groundwater X ::]:::>r:other:wise-aVa.lable_for 'ublic)wazersup 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 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources potentially Potendauy L S- Th= No Significant significant Significant Impact ER 158-96 r untag Impact Page 11 mitigation Incorporated storm elevation. No further mitigation is necessary. ...............................:....... ....,..... Q :would: e,. ro Dial .::.....:.... „ J.. .;k,..;:::.:a'a•,'f:'::.:,,,,>: $,„>;.;:::.: ..,?<i::.:..:3 »,;:>«::... :,•.. k < > s= >s,:5, 2 .,;i.:... w„kw,,., i .;e.. af;,=�7iolate:ariy arr;qual+ty s`tandarc�flr..... gntr�..... o � ....... i extsurtg'or prole8t�d qtr y WirK vtoiattort{Compliance E{ 8,9 X k= I�wrtt�zgl7CD�nvrronmerrta€�uideltnesJ? k k; '_,•>� r >_ , , . ,f 11 f<Expose=senstitve receptors to'poituxaats ' >' �' ; ';` X ::>c ;i:Alte�''"`i�;mavem4'e i~mor ttiro�>'or' .. .< . .;.. � •f•«' > ;.:.k . ,,�:::;>;>:: ,•.�„ ;..,,...�l..R::: s :_....:�temperaEu�er, gr" "us�i. X X 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 Sources Potentially Potentially I.essThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 158-96 Issues Unless Impact Page 12 mitigation Incorporated site; and g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work. :: he ro osai a .. ..,..._. .. ..... .. :.:•;:.:::.:: ]::),.•]a:.:•sass:.]:::,.....:..... ,.r....... aJ Increased v h p ":j:iaffrc:Gang o 5 3 3y> ]]:`r:'s:• r:?:a,::>.:, e ccfe to s:W.S esti n 10 X =b� ;Hazards ta`safety ror "Eliesign`f �)ures'. sharp cUr,ve.sZr.dangerouBlnterS6CtIOnS) OfJnCOm p auble'uses X ,osi ss5 3 7]r' Fs i 3.,. s 1 , ] ..j.,..9.: act:rr.E ut merit}3,-. _ :.�]]. ,>, ..,..,.... grs.P].,sss•:.s.. :.>:<:::... :... l Inatlequate errsergeat<tr access or acce's's rd nearby' " K € 1' X Injsufftcienr pa`rkrng capacity or site o�uhf site ... '`' htlZa(. 5»n.; K,.:, :a..::")2:.?:3::{];r::]:.!::::5:a;:;ES;;:<:.:::::..:;:,:x:v..<.•:p;. X eJ ds tir darner$#or pedestrians br blcycfisis} X f) , Gonfhcts watt adopted po6ctessupportlr►g tteri..Ittye<.:.:'.:. s:,,n.;..; ••• •�transpor[at<art;deg:,6us>turnouzs�<5lcycle;racks ?• •�'� '�� .X 1�5 ,.RatE, waterborne or air traffic rm'.acts Ce 1 ' ::compati_aGtywltFiSai�j.uis:DliisPo:Coy::Aire"ortLand'> �€�:_ P 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. Emeraencv 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 �-36 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially L=Th= No Significant Significant significant Impact ER 158-96 I== unless impact 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 Fre Marshall. 8. 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 pro'ect's parking needs. No further mitigation measures are necessary. ...... 0. O.GICAL:IiESO. R.. . .....::....>::>;><:;;;::<:;;;:.;:::::>.;>:,;:::;<;<:<„z;::<::,,;::<::<;:::::: :::....::...... U CES..,::Wou►d the roposal affect , ' :..... aI L.5. habitats Gnt luding but not}Itmtted tt.'plants, fish, insects, 11 X ........... .I.. bJ Localfy designated s .... (e g heritage treeslt X �I Localtjdesignated....... communmes (e goak ... forest, coastal habitat, etc I? X di V1(eiland habitat j marsNx riparian and vernal pooh > 12 X el:�»�Witdlife?his ersat`.or;:mi tatiorcoreldiiis?€€�€s >;>i.. > :€ €� 's: X Endangered. Threatened or Rare Species The City's Informational Map Atlas indicates there are no sensitive plant or animal species on 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 tree 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-toot setback along Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources potentially Potentially LssThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 158-96 issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 14 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 necessary. ;. :,<: 8.:,>:E111EFG10:AND:lVI(IYERQ4:RES0URCE :<:.::....]• .:].:.:]]:::: a Cd the o aj K ConfCctswtxh:aifo pted ienergy onse vat rt'plans> ]:,: ]3.....:Ski]>t"t;:iii>;;;;:>or:,.....,£,;:.;.•,:C::,.: r,<:,,,t�° ,, 2 X 1z1,;;lJsQ,nQr�renewable resources tn'awasteful artd$'23 ' ineffniten "manner ' ',:.,f ]'KK; ;: a';x ;>'.;<:] ; �t Resulr�rt<the loss of avaifaliltty of a knowri"mineral z;' 2 X ]5 ] resource #hat�nrould be t,f future value;tg#be segtorE > 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%. :::::.. ..:...:..;.....:;::::..,,.,,,........................... .......US. the: ro bsal'.involve::€d a} Q..risk pf acadentaF explgsioii°orrelease of.... dou5 substancesA nmuding,:buL not.limite zo<:oil, .. . .:. X pesttcttles chemrcals or radlationl? F sPo..... )aterference vtnfh art emergency.response or emergency evactiatiort plan X cI Tfie creation�f any freafth hazard or potential health hazardz X d} Exposura of peopfe`to exrsttng sources of potentrai ;hea.Tth>.Elazard �r<>:::::::::::.............:......»:]::::;:::;:.:::.;::::.::::;>;; ::.::: ::]<;: s X ep Increased frre hazard in areas vvlth Ilammabfe brush rass:or trees?<..........;; ..........::r:a: :;>.:: ::<::::r::::=::>:::...............<: ::::s ... . .:.......:... :: X ...... Issues and Supporting Information Sources SaurcYs Potentially Potentially 1.W Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 158-96 Issues Unless Impact Page 15 mitigation Incorporated NNoise .............................::...,,.:.:,....,.......,......,.::.:.:...,..:....,...........:.....::.:,................,... • ' -- .. .......n.:...:::............:... ..s:¢:x;:2:5:..,...,..�:;;:WouldS:th .. .. .,,....:.....:»»;::: , .. ,<.e prapasai result rnse ing noise ieveisT ' : »re of people to.iSiOnat;ceby 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 necessary. ........... .. C SERVICES WoU1d the propos..[h..ve an effect upon oc result to a need for new ora[tered government services m an of the:following areas ;; ',,;; > Fire protection?.: . >;;E;:>as::> ............:: :?::<:: :::;.>:s::>:>:>:;>> X :5::::;::::::: 5:;::r;;;;:a:: ::::::::::::»;;: X c >sr c.iiols?s>s;; ri[: ::::::: : .;., €ss>:::::: ................ .............................•.....:.....) ......................:.....:.....:......::::. `M.ainte.r anoe:of PuEil c fa'ci.lities ricludin 'r a ?s i i:>'. :: 9 gads X e) :Other,:governmentai services.::- € 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. ........... .........__..............,....... 1:2U fICIT1ESii4ND.:SERV :::.:..::_.::::::: :::::: : - -:;:::....._.....,..,.;.,.,...5_._-:.....::.5:;.,.;.........:..;..,:.:.::::.....:.::...::................... :::::.:::::::::.:::::: ;::::::::::.::::......CE,SYSTEMS ;I;;Would;the io osai:resul 'irt;..,,...... : ......... . ..,............ .....,,......,:..:....... ....:.:::::: P p t a need for new systems ar supplies,.. oc.su6staritiai alterations to the iolfowin uttlrttes.' ,.�. ... .,.� .:Yt .. .. ...:::. al Powe or rtatii a l'.�gas7::::::` �:::.•:.::::•»» :..........:: ::..:..:::::.:.....:.. _. fi) Gommuntcat�ons systems X c) Local or regional water trg�tment.or distriEiuttort.:..., . ..: r[::: :> : :::::<:a:: ...........s»::;::;::;:::2:20:;,:<:r¢:;r;» ;f:ac�l�t.es.:::........:...::....:...5:.,::...,..::::.::::::::;::2::::::2::::5:2::::::::::::>::>:.>,:;:..,:;:......: :;:;::;::: €€Sewef orae...tic:tariks7 >€s [ ;;;p:r:<>:::.:::::::0.1 ::::::::: .....:......> ;:<r»::::. X 2)�: Storm water�drairtage?•-.., X f.. Solid waste.disposal? 13 X or:regtonal"waYefsVppltes2. i .... X Sewer 2 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 L=Tban No Significant Significant Sigtificant 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°x6 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 201 B. 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 otential water-use impacts. 13 AESTHETICS Would the ro osat .... ..... a) Affect- scenic vista pr sce �c highway2 n X demonstrable':negaUue aesthetic effects . 2 X c):€ Create:C ht.or larV...........>....:.........:::::.:.....::. ...... x 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 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. 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 fighting 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, /-#0 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sour= potentially Potentially LezTban No Significant Significant Sigu6cant Impact ER 158-96 I== Unless �p� Page 17 mitigation ToraWed with Special attention given.to the height and pe of li htin fixtures. :...5 : 1 ........................,....E ..'S:.....:...:...,i. 14 CULTURAL RESOURCES u Would the al>;,R�sxurb pateontofoglca) resources?: ,° f 5 5 ; > - X b} Disturbarchaeol":*< I resources? ' `' 14 X pl Affect#Iistortcal,q§our 14 wre5 1. X } tf�vQ Xha P4tert�al'to`catis a Rh.... Change%vEliGfi X ffecx:� niqu.e:eth'nlc:pullura(,sva :''' zC<?<., ,..«,.. ..fn>;i;z;5>i:%.:.,..F,:: e} Resfrtcrtextstrng relrgtous orsacrerf psis wtthlnrihe',,>; X ......5...fiiite'iI"tia[:impact.area7:.::>:: :,:,:;:.:�;<;,;�'.:,>,:;:r;,::,�a u�>:;>.,::;>•;r.:::,:.:;>5:,::;:>;>::: 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 (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. 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 constructio.n plans for the project. ... ..... ........ .............. 1.5_,FiECREi4TlON :.....::;:.:..:..,:...;;:: :::::::,::;:,;,:::':Propose :Increase:the demand for ineig. or.bod o�regional ..,..;. .. r , rgr bther`�ecreatmnaEfac�lties h}..::Affect:ez�sUn recreaLdnaf flp o[t�nit�es?�l ��' " ��` 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 1988. ..... ..... sl.6zi'.MANDATO.R:j ..F_.. . .. . ... . ,..:.. ;::>:;;_:::;;;:,.:::::::,;<;;::<>:::::>::;:;;::::::><;,,..:,.:..:,...:.;.........:. .. IND1111GS..O. .S(GNIFICAbfCE. :; . Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources PotentiallyFUrd= tentially ItsaZl�an i\o Signitiantfifiant Sigrificant Impact ER 158-96 Issues Inapact Page 18 mitigation Incorporated aJ D4gs the protect have tb.. potehtial to degrdde'ihe quality f tEie envtrorament,=substantially:reduce tihe>; habitat of a#lsh,or �tvlldufe spccles;'cause a'fish orf ,a LI.... population to drop beloinr self sustarrnng levels,„' rhreaten'io ehmmate a plant or animaf community; ',> t'Y reduceEthe�tumber or3Eestrlct thei;range;pf a rare ar > �" X g = p ....»...:...•, rnate �itrportant; ;> f;Y\ ' exampfes,of the major pg��o�sEv�California history or:=.:.. ; ::•.:.:=::pcehisto.. ?_ ::..::� Y >,,; ; YY Y Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to checken the table on age 3. areas-1 have adverse impacts for all the issue d i Does:the:iprojec ?have it s`:.'.o'.tien..ig..;.Y ia,C :.:.:.::...::: tai to achieve short X ;term,to the �Tsadvantageof tang term,' enwrorfinentalY. :.: In this case, short- and long-term environmental goals are the same. clioesaf.e projecthave:: a:::.:....: :::.:•.::;:::.;.::Y::;..;:: :,;.....•..;;;f <:>::>:: imp cts that are lndwidualrty limited, but cur>ttilativel.. considerabie4 ["Cumulatively considerable means tha.. incremental effects of a X project are ronslderaE Je wheri viewed'in€c'•r.......... "> cs_> . ection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of 3 other current pro�ects,.and`the:�ffects.of�'prpbable..,..„,..;� 6T;'­:.. . ......:..::.......Y.....:::3::: ::.... Y uturep .ro ects : a:::;::>e::::>:::;;:;i € �:::3:> The impacts identified in this initial study are.in general specific to this project and would not be categorized as cumulatively significant. d.....sltF e::`projeer Piave ariv'ironmdnzaa'.ef ”' . fects which wilt caiisesiitisiantrai adverse effects on human,.being's,; :,; ............::r.`E:::S:z' i=:::::...,:::::i::<:::::...:..,,.::......<: :..e:5>....;:.:..:::;.>::>..: X ::::::.either:directly::oranditectly.} With incorporation of mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans. 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. .............._.....:::....... ............ artier analysi's::may:be used::.where : r >YY: YY;;:;:.__...... Y...:.__:....:,..,,..:....... pu suant to the.:fienng,.prpgrarri?EiR,-or other CEQ,4 process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in:an earlier,Efl or NegaUvey©ectaranan,'Sectiorf t 0631c]s'#32' {DJ In Yhis':case a discussion'shoutd oenUf the folfowm({itarrts:>:::>s::3::: x aJ arlmr;ana[ is used::.:fderiti. .eaiTier:anaf ses°anifistate whece the: are avalahTe for' revrevu , All analysis of environmental impacts associated with this project were included in this study, rather than i relying on revious analyses. bl 'slmpact§'.iadequatet addressedc>��� � '."s: ` '-:::� .......,..Y..........:.................::.atlenttf. ...w...hich..effec :::.. ...•».._.,.. .::.::: :..::.•:;:3.3:33:.:::;..::3:.:::..333>.....,,..:3:,3:.:::..3:;.:3 : :..of.and•:acfe•, uatel" anal. zed m . .. ::. < ;=Y ;. x..s = 4< �„: a..., scope.: .......:::::�:::.��::�>:::�:�Q.>:::::� Y.. ....:.Y.,•::.::;:'::..Yartseartler.;tiocgirieni, ursuant•.t .:: ,.. . ...:>.•,�;;:::>:>:.r�>a[ :3:::::Z .. ,,. P ., a applicable legal standards, and state �� ::�whetherauch'.�effects weri addressed b miv orlon measues'base.`d on tlie'�eai•IleFlanal sis' >,,; No licable. y »> .:.....:..........:. .::::::: :..:..;..,. :.Y.:.;.:.'h.......:..,. ........,.,... :.,..:,:: cJ Mivgation measures For effects that are "Less than S�gq�ficant,wrth Mrtigatiorp fncororated,” describe the mrcigation measures which were incorporated nr3 reftned from the earlier document ar5'$the extent to: ..:which the`:addiiss site-specific;:condifions.of the.>profect '.i> Not ap licable. - AutFior t: €.:ub7i .. .... ..:...:...::.......... Y F c Respurces Code Sections X10$3 and 2i087 Reference Public Resources Code Sections 21080 fcf, 2108Q 1 2108EJ3, 21082 '1, 2 083, 2 Q83x3, 21093;..32:109.4,.21]5l1;:Sundsrromv ..Counf':of.�t?endocrno,'202Ca1 '1� 3d'25.fi (1'9881 [Qon'offfi% d(4onrere.:..goa�d:of::,Su er.:vrsor5,..:222.�at. A 3d1i337•f�.9901 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, "Pol 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. Cit of San Luis Obispo Seismic SafetyElement, Jul 1975. 7. Flood Insurance Rate Map (communityPanel 060310 0005 C) dated Jut 7, 1981. 8. APCD's "CEQA Air QualityHandbook", August 1995. S. Cit of San Luis Obispo Grading Regulations, SLO Municipal Code Section 15.040 X. 10. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 4' Edition. 11. City of SLO Informational Map Atlas. 12. Botanical SIL�rvey of Old Garden Creek prepared 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. Mitioation 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. Monitorino 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. Mitioation 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 /-�3 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 Ian check rocess 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 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. �1 �T 9. MitigationMeasure: 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 buildin Perm Ian 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 De artment 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 in ections. 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 rimaril by the Communit Develo ment 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 tans during architectural review and buildi oermit 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. Monitorin Pro ram: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for architectural review and a building permit by the Comm.--i Develo ment 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. I hereby agree to the mitigation measures and monitoring program outlined above. Applicant Date 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-4-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 GYM 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. 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 wereshown 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 community. He said most residents no longer drive. It would be possible for that site to house 200-300 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 Morro 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. 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 out 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,Rsaid 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 156 ARC Minutes April 21, 1997 Page 5 felt the residential quality of thle 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. R 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 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. With at staff level. , The creek setbacks can be dealt Commr. Illingworth basically agreed with Commr. Combrink. He said nobody disagrees With the concept, only the size of the building. He thought the Planning Consmission 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 �-SZ 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 still a problem, the imposing pitch may be too high. He thought if the third story is probably the one shown. The roof's size s i were setback more and the building were set back further it would be better. He stated that the open space area in the Ramona 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 openduring 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; /-s3 ARC Minutes April 21, 1997 Page 8 • break up the roofline appearance ppearance 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. 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 construction project.. as part of the 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 EI 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 R Draft ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Regular Meeting - June 2, 1997 PRESENT: Commrs. James Aiken, Woody Combdnk, Linda Day, Curtis Illingworth, Peggy Mandeville, Laura Joines-Novotny and Ron Regier ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner PROJECTS: 1. ARC 158-96: 55 & 61 Broad Street: Review of new assisted-care facility;plus modifications to existing building at 61 Broad, parking, landscaping, and creek restoration improvements; R-4-PD zone; Morrison 1 LLC, applicant. Judy Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending final approval, with landscaping and fencing to return to staff. Hamish Marshall, representative, noted the City Council approved the project. He distributed drawings showing the change in the front elevation. He noted the ARC had the same. plan as the one they saw at the May 19n' meeting. Minor changes now include a railing change for the upper level deck which features a "garden bed" at two levels, and wrought iron at the top. Mike Peachey described the rail and the drawing of the two story building, which he explained is the view neighbors across the street would have because their line of sight would not take in the third story. Marshall displayed a view from below on Broad Street. Peachey described how he measured a brick pilaster to use for scale and drew the perspective. He discussed the mock-up drawings produced by Jake Feldman, saying they did not line up with what is there. He noted the road was higher at the Village, but the Heritage site is the lowest part of the site and the building will be lower than the others. He said he has tried to present the facts and he asked for final approval. Commr. Mandeville asked about planting and the variety of sizes of landscaping in the front. / -S6 SII tuftOBISWO Sal�1 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, theundersigned hereby appeals from the decision of The Architectural Review Con¢niss' rendered on June 2,1997 which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitrig appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) . i!ia mass of the three story "Heritage at Garden Creek" assisted living facility at 61 Broad Street as presently proposed is incompatible with the ne!5hb=bccd and must be SIGNIFICANTLY reduced in scale in order to lssen the impact on the surrounding area. This neighborhood appeal consists of kL individual appelants, names and addresses are attached. ) The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: on Name/Departure (Date) Appellant 7k k M069&_ A&e Na e/Title Mailing Address (& rip Code) 11_',49 Q- 756 - 28 564 Home Phone Work Phone ' Representative: NamelTitle Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: j Calendared for 9 Date &Time Received: C. City Attorney City Administrative Officer Copy to the following department(s): Original in City Clerk's Office Appellants re ARC ruling granting approval to The Heritage at Garden Creek(61 Broad) APPellantCr: Mecof, Aue- 7w, 4W6,6a Name/title . ""'Mailing Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone APPenant'1 Name/title-T Mailing Address (B Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone AppellantsD � ?(a wo "(f 4 Ay&of o �, �5 Name/title Marling Address( Code) S'i't -�Ir3s °lr,(o -6(440 Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: /. •PI itle Mailing Address ( t Zip Code) Home Phone. Work Phone Appellant:Awe wos,- Name/title Mailing Address (&Zips Code) Home Phone Work Phone ,l I Appellant; ,/�`Gf ��J( VL S Name/title Mailing Address(&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellants re ARC ruling granting approval to The Heritage at Garden Creek(6I Broad) Appellant: \4400 sf- e.�Y&dI1 1149 /kAew 4eL4. 5 CD cA ' g3LID57 Nameltitle . Mailing Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: : I AV a TI;AJII 7,.4 /y6,kEc,ct A%e SLD 93405 . Namettitle Mailing Address (&Zip Code) L - q6 16 541 - q 42 Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: L S G 0 e Name/title Mailing Address (& ip ode) )4q-1 4e_I5 AL1 Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: Name tit a Mailing Address (8 Zip C de) Home Phone. Work Phone - Appellant: 1lL LeV\U\� 706 V e(AeGl� Name/title Mailing Address(&Zip Code) — -7 Home Phone Work Phone Appellant Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) s-.J ; a Home Phone Work Phone l'.S! . 3 ch aG Appellants re ARC ruling granting approval to The Heritage at Garden Creek(61 Broad) Appellant: tSrRA4-r Name/title Mailing Address(&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: i( 'Ile r� Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: ` -70 u Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Co e) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: r/-)— 7`l Name/ Mailing Address (&tip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: , vQ 414 iJ �(� kQ LJ Name/title Marling Address(&Zip Co e) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant:`/- Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone l'60 �: .�� zo Appellants re ARC ruling granting approval to The Heritage at Garden Creek(61 Broad) Appellant" ?9d •�%i�d.�i Name/title . Mmling Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant W 7 d a . C( Osl Name/title Mailing Address(&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant:. Name/title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: , /lc0 �/ea� SD`' Name/title Marring Address (&Zip Code) Sh�3 . 1912 Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: Iz-),6,41AJ/ � 3med� lame/title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) Y Home Phone Work Phone � - - s acs Appellants re ARC ruling granting approval to The Heritage at Garden Creek(61 Broad) Appellant e . Mailing Address (&/Zip Code) Ho Phone Work Phone N titl Mailing Address(& Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: !/. 0041-641 Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) _ 5�3 ^a906 Home Phone Work Phone Appe title Mailing Address(&Zip Code) Home Phone. Work Phone Appellant C�w"�o �0 y Cy18G�C.� i �L� 4 37:3 S N e/title Mailing Address(&Zip Code) 507 =-�- Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: Name/title Mailing Address(&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellants re ARC ruling granting approval to The Heritage at Garden Creek(61 Broad) Appellant: / 'tUry Name/title . Mailing Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant -=?:SZ MED NiF � -i 34OTw Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) S743-771n3 s,=wy, Home Phone Work Phone Appellant:- '(;� �c Z 0,=\ 1 s 1 ' CI SL'0 S Name/tile i ; Mailing Address(&Zip Code) 543 -S a q o —�- ^Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: Ntime/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: ,m, i ��2Gt. , I a-az a!v �c Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: C�`�I JGlJi'1S �7�'Oay _ Name/title Mail ng Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone aa3 Appellants re ARC ruling granting approval to The Heritage at Garden Creek(61 Broad) Appellant: 4f?77. _j3,+DCR Name/title . Mailing Address(&Zip Code) 7 0 96.6 Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: IM A1J.A I'F\G—k CSU ISe-DAV) Name/title Mailing Address(&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: / 6IZDA .S 7— Name/title Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) S14 - IUB Home Phone Work Phone Appellant 7Y' 21y.«ate C1 —� ame/title 1. Mailing Address (& Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: / �?�?( -Nameltitle Mailing Address (&Zip e) Home Phone Work Phone Appe t: , t' �G� = r 6�� %Z AJ -c.'�/ L7 �6 ame/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellants re ARC ruling granting approval to The Heritage at Garden Creek(61 Broad) Appellant: 3-99--) Ll t SSl ok] S amehitle Mailing Address (&Zip Code) 1 -3 I n�fF Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: ��{1 LL0 ILL 1L Name/title Mailing Address(&Zip Code) C:;�q /A- Home Phone Work Phone n` ul l ► ' Appellant: l`rw Name/title Mailing Address(&Zip Code) S�3 Iq z- 7;y zu76 Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: Dame/title V Mailing Address(&Zip Code) 41 zo Home Phone. Work Phone Appellant: P.I,tJZ7r\ i d ame/title Mailing Address(&Zip Code)' Home Phone Work Phone Appellant:%,b Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone 9 � ad Appellants re ARC ruling granting approval to The Heritage at Garden Creek(61 Broad) Appet�Arr bA) Mkt ?I�yoS Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) :SX! X095 Home Phone Work Phone Appellant �� /{/�'A fY o�Pli/%' 75 eNTo N w A �346 s Name/title Mailing Address(&Zip ode) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: K r t'� /o-PF 7_L l3fNTd� U-) 3 q o-� Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code Home Phone Work Phone AppellantL2kffS e/title Mailing Addre (& Zip Code) Home Phone. Work Phone Appellaa GIS ame/ tle Mailing Address(& Zip Code) 544 24 5� Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: Q X102 f2ougeof �laCe,S-6 N /title Mailing Address(&Zip Code) �3-115 Home Phone Work Phone 66 Appellants re ARC ruling granting approval to The Heritage at Garden Creek(61 Broad) Appellant:Ctjt,5'P CJnznw LS Name/title . �( Marling Addres &Zip Code) �0�-OGbZ Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: L( L:P, eo a. t-pi, 5 Lo, C.6 Name/Me Mailing Addres (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: ho( fD*h Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone APpellant?"��Y �c _ �'� . _�_� �C %���scr e �e r c Name/title Mailing Address (&Zip Code) .f �{75S 7`� 2 Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: G�wFovey LA7yq 17 Z 89cAD 57-- 5C-e CA Name/title Marling Address (&Zip Code) Sy-7 ? 7 -7 Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: ,t. L Name/title . Mailing Address (&Zip Code) cf 7) L[ 7. Home Phone. Work Phone Appellants re ARCruling grantng approval to The Heritage at Garden Creek(61 Broad) Appellant:Ngne/titk Mailing Address(&Zip Code) #3; SS9W Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: Namel&e Mailing Address(&Zip Code) SVS -6-:5-94v Home Phone Work Phone �LQ�� � " AAI5 SL ) qWt Appellant: L - .���-�'1eI . Name/ ' e- Mailing Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: O clay D5. e/title Mailing Address (&Zip de) Home Phone Work Phone Appellant: l��%Jvt0�7 71%d� Nanie/title Mailing Address(&Zip C ode) Home Phone Work Phone Appellan ame/titl Mailing Address(& ip Code) !44 -Go 4C- 7 9� Home Phone Work Phone ��l00 The following photographs are to illustrate how the developers of the original planned development worked with the neighborhood in planning the location. of the buildings and parking lots. The existing buildings were set below street level on Palomar (all you can see fron the Luneta and Palomar location is a very small portion of the third story). On Broad Street the three-story buildings are set below street level and, in the case of 61 Broad, that three-story building is completely hidden from view of the neighboring R-1, low-scale neighborhood. The existing parking lot across from the R-1 neighborhood does not intrude upon the character of that neighborhood (which includes Broad, Benton, Chorro, Rougeot, Meinecke, Murray and Serrano Dr. ) Only on Ramona, across from a C-N zone which Houses Lucky Market, can ':you see the three-story building. COMPARISONS: Two assisted living facilities in the Arroyo Grande area have been successfully in operation with 32 and 35 beds. A new two-story asssited living facility for the Arroyo Grande area is in the planning stages. This facility will house 72 people and is 37,000 sq. ft. in size. CONCLUSION: Assisted living facilities with two stories or less are financially feasible and are in operation without three stories. RECOMMENDATION: Remove third story, making the building the same level as the existing two-story portion of the Village as it faces the parking lot on Broad This building should be harmonious, compatible and "fit" into the existing historical neighborhood. `3LA13 a s � • rt; 1 _ w rA ...ti, t- �. -•'y..��a / �_ 'til` ._ x ' w � ,,. '— t1 l i ' -- •; 1• - - ••- •� - • •• ••• • • / r, •-� rig`�_�.:. .t. �-ld�..,,� C -.;� -!moi'-�!' � -a -r.�f �lii. �'" .�i .S '� � =A- _�'^.�_�• Northwest e - _ • • - of •I • Streets. View is 100king southwest towards three story 61 Broad Street apartments. Note that apartments are below street level and hidden by mature Oaks. .�y� :. � � - �� - -.� � � • 'tom Southwest elevation at Palomar showing top Of third story of 61 Broad with bulk of building below street level. �/ �' • c) "` � ���ar�- ,ti �� � It � fii �' � �, � ' �� t � ' _may _ .c _ -- - _ - - - o yr,t � � 1 C � Yi i�i i �. :�� _ }� "ie, _ r Q-f - l� - •'�' :j '` '- '.� ' _ - �-�^. -�_ .- �}_ _ - �_':' -:� _ _ - - ' � - \ - �y.i ' ` -, -. `., .. � . - t � _ ; . . ' j _ t ;� _ - � , T,' __ � _ -_ . . � F` J � Y4r`�'4 ��+q -,. � �, �.�. 2 c :o +.:rte, Aft f �.. _ 7 - � 1 L 1 � � ��. .�• .. AMY. - fir, ..��y� F' �� ��`•;f "4��i FM1`1 f�1F����,-``i~\`r41 4�i L�. .1 a r�1:1y�� ' ��� '7 4 r 1fF � i T fz ._r 1 �c{",-r ,ter -f .,r F �iF:` Y ���.%'� •• -/'. �• 1 ' F oil •• • • — _•— c Y' r 1 e �i 3 .y Y:'t �'-�5.�.{. � � '\`�✓� < �'�i <..`t4 j 4 L �J! 1111 �ao"T—z • 00 — •; — — _ • O • • • ••• —• _. r��! ��.. ---�`� ��`� •;`tel r�` -�/ T�=I y� _` �� _ r 1 r_ — __ _ _. - ,� .I. —�• - _ _ � r..-._- ....2e f ...��r_j.I PI:r jy r l--� ''� _-# "1.�(:. qq 4 ° S d• �b�to 3°b 1 C° �l •TI ! .' y1 y 4 1 $°� RI.':aCy c3 lfig y ° 1 f ^- Try ^k-7'7 i° •a5„�`�. Ab +�6°' �r t9 a �Fit,.a,y�. X1 e s`v�Fc 1 ''"4a`� .1 111 • - - • • • • ••• _• - 1 111 • t � • MEET DATE :���AGENDA City Council of San Luis Obispo 7i5i97 DATE "> �S ITEM # r San Luis Obispo, Ca. Dear Members of the City Council I would like to encourage you to support the project of the Village to build an extended care facility for seniors near its present location.My mother is a resident of the Village at this time and soon will be needing assisted care. Itwould make it much easier on her to not be uprooted entirely and have to move to a different place to get the kind of supervision and care that she will need. The last move was very difficult for her and it took a couple of years before she was able to fully adjust from moving from her long-time residency in home on Del Norte Street in San Luis Obispo to the Village. She is very happy there now and I am afraid that a radical change in her present situation would be very traumatic for her and potentially damaging to her health.There are other good reasons for you to support this project than simply the approaching needs of my mother. Certainly,this type of business development is appropriate for our community. It is a clean "industry,"it employs a number of people,it invites persons with disposable income into our community.Moreover, it provides the kind of balance that is needed in our community in that it introduces seniors into what seems to be a rather youth-oriented community given the prominence of the university population. I know that some people think that their views of San Luis Mountain will be obstructed by the edifice that is being proposed.I understand their concern and if I were one of them I probably would not like my view being impaired as well.However,it seems to me that the primary duty of the city should be confined to making sure that the mountain itself is not marred for the benefit of the general community but that the city should not get into supporting the special interests of individuals who want the city to control what is going on in the valley so that all who live there can see the mountain. Imagine the kind of nightmare such a policy would cause if everyone wanted to protect their particular view of something! I am sure that this issue must be resolved by some sort of compromise.The guiding principle should be what is best for the community as a whole.If you think the elderly should not be farmed out to Morro Bay or Atascadero when they get too old to take rare of themselves,and that their having lived here and served the community(my mother ta as deacon in a church and was very active at the Art Center) entitles them to be able to remain in the community in their declining years,then support the project. Please do not make it so that some of our citizens are banished from the city that they love simply because they are old.They and the community of which they have been and remain an integral part deserve better than that. Thanking you for your consideration,I am sincerely yours, A Marian M Mayo P.O.Box 1584 Morro Bay,Ca 95443 UNCII etDO DIR 17"Cr0 ❑ FIN DIR ❑4cm ❑ FIRE CHIEF ❑VIO INEY ❑ PW DIR RECEIVED ❑ OMRKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT M ❑ REI DIR ❑ ❑ UTIL DIR ,I I!I. 0 9 1997 ❑ ❑ PERS DIR SLO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Ast-NDA DATE '7-1,5`257 ITEM # July 7, 1997 Dear Mr. Settle I would like to introduce myself to you; I am Ray Herren. I live in Pismo Beach and have since 1967. 1 have seen a lot of changes to our beautiful area, mostly in growth and expansion. I am by no means a pro growth advocate. I am writing to You about the new project "The Heritage" that is proposed for 55 Broad Street. My Mother is now at "The Village", she is Eighty-Six years old. She is now one of your voting constituents along with all of the other residents of "The Village". I moved Her over here about four years ago. It has really been a big help to the both of us. If I understand it correctly this new project is supposed to be a sister facility to The Village. I am not sure if you realize how few facilities that we have on the coast for full care Seniors. It would certainly be nice if the City of San Luis Obispo our County seat could find it in their hearts to help support a nice quality full care Senior facility. I believe that this location would not create new problems and if anything might eliminate some. It would replace one of the off Campus dorms. This should be a bonus to the neighbor hood, as it would reduce traffic and probably noise. I would not think there would be nearly as many people coming and going from the new facility as there is on a daily basis from the current one. I thank you for your time and as a thirty year SLO County resident I encourage You to support this project. Sin ly, ra:yterren c.c.: Bill Roalman (Council Member) Kathy Smith (Council Member) Dave Romero (Council Member) Dodie Williams (Council Member) The Village OUNCIL Or CDD DIR 13rCA0 0 FIN DIR RECEIVED 0 ACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF /1TiORNEY 0 PW DIR arCLERKIORIG O POLICE CHF J U L 0 8 tQ GMT TEAM 0 REC DIR 0 tIrIL DIR SLO CITY COUNCIL 0 PERS DIR :N4EETING AGENDA TE -��'9r ITEM # July 9, 1997 [�ATTORNEY DD DIR ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FlRE CHIEF San Luis Obispo City Council O PW DIRSan Luis Obis o, CA IG ❑ POLICE CHFp M ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR Dear Council Members: ❑ PERS DIR My name is Dean Gabor von Werlhof, and I have lived at The Village at 55 Broad Street in SLO for the past ten years. My husband, Jay C. Von Werlhof taught in the History Dept. at Cal Poly for many years. Along with being involved in many projects and promotions of good will and interest for the county. I am shocked that Mr. Smith is being petitioned again to give good reason for the existence of the project he proposes for assisted living. This project will give much help for a very much needed assisted living convenience in our area. Have these people who are resisting this idea taken a good look as to what is available in the county for this kind of help? As far as I can see, most of the people complaining about this proposed site better give it more thought as they are fairly close to retirement and assisted living themselves. Secondly, frankly the building to house assisted living is very much of an architectural improvement to the neighborhood. So many houses in this area are very run down, needing repair, paint and some pleasing to the eye landscaping. This is what we in our home, The Village has to deal with when we look out of our windows or walk our dog in the neighborhood. Real estate wise, I believe Mr. Smith's addition of this building to the neighborhood will improve the value of their real estate. Mr. Smith promises a very lovely and pleasing to the view practical addition to our neighborhood. Mr. Smith's property, The Village is a tribute of beauty to the area and the city. His planned building will be the same. He has a great regard for beauty and people. Our county can be proud of his contributions. The present assisted living places have a very mixed and overcrowded population. All levels of physical and mental health patients are put together. This is so unhealthy as any persons with a semblance of sanity find these living conditions unbearable. What follows are much depression and death. It is too much to bear. I know of many dear people who have met with this fate, as it was inevitable in their environment to survive for any length of time. Please remember them when you are deciding. You can allow, please, a very Healthy in all ways caring establishment for assisted living to come alive for our loved ones or "send them up the hill" to disappear. A Caring Citizen RECEIVED Dean Gabor von Werlhof 1991 SLO C OUNCIL bbb - MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM # e(UNCIL 0 CDD DIR ..n s� . ,•:r . . ' '"•' •.;�: O FIN DIR AO E3 FIRE CHIEF I ORNEY ❑ PW DIR CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF D MGMT TEAM D REC ,•: _ •;•:;,,� :ys � - DIR Tp/ 'D O UTIL DIR D PERS DIR July 11, 1997.= 1, :�t Aq7J - i}.;cj 'Dear City YS.:f '.•Syt 'I wnteto voice my support far theproIVAposed care Wc'ility,The yeritage arGarden Greek. As a pastor in this community, I see wuide variety of n6eds,,including'[those of the'-Sick and aged. I believe The Heritage would :provide.a u610ueseryice to thls:_atea'as mid-ran4e ofe,faciIity.:fdf the hundreds of people for whom hospital or hospice cere isn#-'suitable F Lp•: j�Yt t.w , rh J r , San Lvis OhispQkS a city in wh cTr the quaQrrty,Fof ire Is�a+hIgn prior ity .lam convinced that The Heritage at Garden GreA,i§a#actllty worth approving nd'suppbr fngr,ta further enhance the nurture of the elderly citizens of`'thiS community .Ybdr support.of'thlsipro ec r kI; end`a welcome signal to the people In your;constliuency tha't&' Luis Oblspo-rs as'016 that camg,. ose. uho c nnot'care for themselves ;. . \^ <' r�,'"°7 rar' 7n �' f i w .r}�.�+�SY% xr�•S��w V 7 y\t . - Y ' - --r ' r t [4FYrr If you have Ions--?,ple�s�" r't{�esttate tacell me at�41 3343 r • Y '� �r,�Y .,� !�� T� �r`�rCrx ..�N.Ir r �2, •3i,t� -r.��F�•vt�t l 1 fr •'. r F- a-. ttt� q 7 yr f t,,r S }�7 a.• r r 1} �`^ r e�'�rt - r 7i , r r 2 v My W 1 1� {r5 4 1 • t 1 � t '. [ r \� y �{�� rt \....4 ^'Sir T` y�,I.cn J'•4'S^,T "` tl r Slncerely�,\,i FS�ea Y r �.�J Yo'�tlt�'��5., Ct{5 atF r�tJay�.1u��.f� f fq r �L < \ c_ •r l•.r S 1 y tJ , �� F'� ilr' f^ �r�R tin . °[ .+ 7"1 t .. S' }f t'Sdw��t • t M 4 :d^ �. F r,`••'�} ^ .� bi Y �,'� •: - r ..M1 tl[{jr�\ t-�S1w ,y !, 1: ,"�j�� �`���q:t1�}iy,^j rtr•�\,Y4,i7� �Y �i �� art .1, u w 'u'i:l'� ''Lt. �^va!'i,{� �� rayy •.+.'T�• c+Tri S 1 '-r i^ t3->tt4,v.'PS• Ph•'v t rly t 4 '6 n. '+ , nTOSITach S,S�Vi� J MkPIn � r�j{� l wll art y r. •S'41 r Lead Pastorwr+ . aka x% f '] A '*"i'I i'� r\v!1 �rtr�.r% j4y �'y. ' ly C � M�vci.JvZ 'r CI is + 1 y r N RECEIVED r r ..r Ce'.k �� -i',• y4 Jt y! �r3 t,"q w i � F '�iG�^:, .[a�"3t'.}N -�� 4'' tr'ti `•Y y. 9 n... ^lip. 4y- �[, '. n. N\'•'k' ! A 'ice r�l� v <f�t ^dk 1. r.`3�id,�. C+'�y' •yJ 1 rw J C: [ '.Ja .. lY Y�',!]' ,r� ll ��ilP •�T..SY:✓.'1 A} -S_Ghrl\ 7. f} 1 .�.�2 _ - � .mak 1 � ti�•,..r+ .,i• k �4c� � �.,a 4 t'`! >. �' r a .,J ,c.. � �, F r c [[T..�y 1•c�l'fw�q• .jr7� 4�ik..'�•C-0 „a'i-<[i•,� '.n rk �SrttiY r 5 5t _ •''- t .. >.t \p' +.• 2 j .:. ;'+ ! ££L ,t }•i.s .• ' •,y w r2a e r ..a�r U L ' t V" , E-t:�•`'f�r..�y�,'t�w(r3 }a \ �'��Z1 Y r¢¢t((��ry�j. yty?..� Y y1`�r'Yii,>�':Ll d J`1- { ,. 1: 01997 i.+- h �14u•^ u.l i ems' ke Tisa } M�' . ,r M1f-tr�� .a =.d \JV t 43T,1,,�(��•,1'8•'! F �' f [ ,L A'Y F1 ryln �r tr( ,i r`, •�'- , r.Y��a3 - - , i �{ ;` ,�``�:� � t- = r.� .;�f� ,F J'' SLO'CITY COUNCIL '. 7 [.,' T'� <i .�^ii�iJ-� Y.. `w.^t i�'a.•r� x, sij:. �b'�^ r`4� .r > tom}pdr. /7 ,� d'L•tr �. a dt• -fi .2 "s.t .�yf'S'ty F � tit �•,',� , ,R Y - .^.� <, tI. h' q•b,��' ,}fr`'S,.�f^f` J•41r �r lir 1 �� d r .a5 1t { `2r+ `a ti 'Y' e �v,rr S A x.pp t rr + t S• I i1ta , •t� a-. r filt• dyJ'}4 'r JS•t M pit tb} J4 'x :w �*�` %S0.y ti''FKt! '�il''�J. }l�_pwa. nz+ r+.Zq--,.r•✓ .F. jr r r�r y1•e. v J•e".q, �. "r "ly-'-� �•,.yr. x' a -•chi,/�'F,( - s yy.�t,.Yc, t� + sou. , .ta..� P O al$ Ut11� vt �J Xr/1�/k-. fJ b hM •i r 7�5., M r r tY I .+r.7..eips r7l,.t-^51Td pey,¢<. a �2 h T•i.•wt'..4 \^ Y',,LP�'j4tr�i... a� gs'tS- 'mac ti t r i ?n.rat .2taytq e rT .!r r1 ,tw r.t+ ably „- 4�; z� ] t� 1' /.� Kz i,/}[a-r {r[A2 •y o 2 fix, ��"i.}F'':h.�ttt..'F+�.-% tr\.'4„ rr. � � � s r ry ..hri•�: t, fri•. ' 1[ 11 I. [t' I ) f 0 V I`f PT�f T T 21,Y'+iJ.J a V�� =YY3.tir IrGtFr• ytV. r,f [ ..t•.I ., +r� �i � hr- �-^d� r' r'�"Y �f'L� r ^.^i�(,� +..r:J',Ti+7.7� \8p, a3 rt�y3w r-{a•`-• (� j tT\T 1 'ra'la..t�t4J•��� .� y r 1 , t a ' •L v- \:')°5 1 m m� y 36. .Jr.. r-^R +. s �' 1�7? ,^ .L f'1 \� �r ,cc 7 '♦sl. d r Yom' h l� rn„ Y r _ 1^, fin[ 5s} 1 . 1 t� F SA.� 1• Sy�.' Sr,,�§s Nr v. r.T��iY A'6 ��-a• , ,s�i r , � r t .m ,.... ;V \ O J :' �.F.�YI�t.•I Tt'•$mk,.D. � � S�ri� t , rr p �v r -147 ^�• ' k 1 c neY F. _ ^ r i•iFc� �"^�+�b:l� �n7+J•4 TYl!i•,- 'ijT�� r t t.Y r r J..- -1 5 Ll.,i 5 •<.tau'•r >r u -a(",Y-ys-:�,�t•�r� •r.K -'E'r�y�ty4�"C g� a i t .."r u P': .. .Jt n.`'r 4•. ':C• a'1�a;�3;1a. r.��1 J•'l 'A.,�-W. MEETING AGENDA DATE ::� ITEM # July.14,1997 SanLuis,Obispo'City Council SanT uis Obispo; CA Dear City Council;. : ... . -My father,Kirk Thorp,has:lived at the Village retirement complex at 55 North Broad Street for'over.three:years. He:is veryat The-Village and has made many "close friends: Ivly:father is strongancl healthy at eighty six years of age and,of course, I hope.that he.will remain this way.for.many years to come. I do realize that there may come a,day when tie will need assisted care. At this point our choices for this kind of. help are quite limited and they Would all take my father away from the friends and environment he has.come to:call home and,to love. Tlvs is..why we feel that the building of The.Heritage`at 61.Broad Street would be the perfect solution for.assisted'.living. Being nextdoor to T .&'Village,;The:Heritage would allow my'father.to carry ori with his•life:and his friendships.and with many familiar faces. This could mean the difference between a meaningful and fulfilling life and one of just surviving.To take my father to a facility on the opposite side'of town,or to another town altogether would be extremely isolating,and even more:debilitating, We are:all becoming aware that often it's the older'senior.citizens that:somehow get left out and-cast:away,as unimportant.Our society has,made.many sad choices to. forget their needsiinfav6r of the:younger members of our society who are still strong and:able to take care,o.f themselves.I hope that you will.make the choice to allow the` building of The Heritage,and break.with this historic apathy.We all will.face the need one day for a'place like,The Heritage. I hope that there,will be such a place when we .need if.Thank.you for making a choice to support our older citizens of which we will allone day;become. Sincerely, .. .. RECEIVED ..JUL -t 5.1997 . Letitia Allan : . 8L0 C 17Y CLERK 2107 Sherwood Drive. . --Cambria;CA"93428 _ -/COUNCIL CDD DIR �' C 0: �. -AO 0 FIN DIR , O.flRE CHIEF ' • ri ORNEY .• O PW DIR. :`�:CLERKrORIG 0•POLICE CHF O V%9 TEAM •:O.REC DIR O UTII DIR 13 13 PERS DIR 0111 u ❑ FIN DIR �"' AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF MEETING G1 AGENDA —/❑ ORNEY ❑ PWD1R DATE 7'�s- CLERKIORIG ❑ P ALICE CHF,.. ITEM #------ 0 MGMT TEAM D R;?C DIR O j R ApF'.E U ' DIR 15 July 1997 -_.' Dear City Council Members: Please consider the following in anticipation of tonight's hearing in regards to The Heritage at Garden Creek: 1. On 12 March 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. This decision was then appealed. 2. On 21 April 1997, the Architectural Review Commission continued action on the proposed facility. The Commission agreed, by a 6-1 vote, with the construction of a building for this purpose on this site and with the architectural style and colors proposed. The Commission made the following stipulations with its continuance: a) The building must be set back from Broad Street the same distance as the existing building at 55 Broad Street (The Village at SLO). b) Significant landscaping must be added to the Broad Street front. c) The tbird story must be set back 40' further from the street setback line. d) The appearance of the roofline must be broken up the use of dormer windows. e) The building must not exceed a maximum height of 35'. AD of these stipulations have been met. 3. On 20 May 1997, City Council heard the appeal of the planned development and found by a "5-0 vote in favor of the planned development" thus denying the appeal. EREUIVEI97 4. On 2 June 1997, ARC found that we had complied with all the stipulations and conditions they had outlined on 21 April 1997. A"4-3 vote to approve the design of The Heritage was adopted by ARC." Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, every recommendation, stipulation and condition that the ARC, Planning Commission and you yourselves have made, have been worked into the final proposal of The Heritage at Garden Greek. We are.sure that you will again deny the appeal and give the greater community this badly need facility. Thank you for your time and patience. Yours s' ceY. Hamish Marshall ATTACHED TO THIS LETTER IS A PETITION IN FAVOR OF THE HERITAGE AT GARDEN CREEK WITH APPROXIMATELY 1300 SIGNATURES. N [ING AGENDA DATE 7=ITEM #� RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 C0U1,1011- 200CDD DiR e-mail:rschmidt@calpoly.edu CeCAO ❑ FIN DIR July 15, 1997 ;� ® ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF �7��1TTORNEY ❑ Pw DIR Re: Appeal on Village Expansion 'elf MGWr UoRla n �oI Ic ❑ CiMrTEAM RF=C DIR To the City Council: O)GRfADFI.F 1 urge you to uphold the appeal of the neighbors pertaining to the excessive size,jwY4l bulk, mass and placement of the proposed assisted living building. A split decision from the ARC is no mandate for this project. Rather, it clearly represents the arrogant and intransigent developer's successful wearing down of a number of the commissioners after numerous hearings where the ARC's directives were basically ignored by the developer. • The project that sits before you is a clear affront to many General Plan Land Use Element provisions. For example: 1. LUE 2.2.10. ".. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should be compatible with ANY nearby,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 multistory buildings... may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings." Clearly, this huge building conforms to none of the above. It doesn't respect neighboring homes' size, it will overpower the small houses around it, it will block views and deflect traffic noise towards established homes, it will direct mechanical noise from rooftop equipment into neighbors' homes and yards. 2. LUE "2.2.12. Residential Project Objectives. Residential projects should provide: A. Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project."This project creates massive overlook of the entire neighborhood. "B. Adequate usable outdoor area... oriented to receive light and sunshine." There is no usable outdoor area for the assisted living facility other than a cellblock"courtyard"that will be in the shade all winter and much of spring and fall. Why are there no outdoor site walkways where residents can exercise themselves by walking? '"D. Pleasant views... toward the project."Neighbors who have always had views of San Luis Mountain and Bishop Peak will not find an ugly 35-foot tall building facade to be "pleasant" by comparison. elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front RECEIVED J U L 1 5 1997 SLO �l�'' CLERK porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways."This project violates all of the above. My experience with this sort of facility suggests that a large front porch facing Broad would be popular with the inmates, and that watching street activity from it would provide them with an interesting way to pass the day. 3. LUE "2.8.1. Large group housing ... such as retirement homes... should not be located in low-density residential areas."Although the zoning on the project parcel may be permissive, the corner of the parcel where this massive project is proposed to be located is a "low-density residential area." If the project is to be so massive, it shouR be along the Ramona commercial corridor. • The project that sits before you also affronts the key neighborhood protection goal of the Housing Element: Housing Element 1.10.6 (goal) "Preserve the quality of existing neighborhoods..." Clearly, a project which overpowers a neighborhood does not preserve its quality. What is being proposed is just plain wrongheaded. The out-of-town developer-owners don't care about our neighborhood. They care only about squeezing as much as possible onto the site to up their profits. It is up to the city council, therefore, to protect the neighborhood from this huge and unwarranted physical intrusion. If the council fails to protect this neighborhood, you will be sending a very evil signal about the priorities of the city vis-a-vis profit vs. livability. As an architect, I can tell you this building is very poorly designed inside and out, and that better functional design could mitigate many of the neighbors' concerns while making the project itself more viable and more livable in the long term. As a constituent who had to place his own mother in an assisted living community, where she lived happily for many years, I can tell you the deficiencies obvious in this project's design would lead me never to place her there. The place is malfunctional, both socially and from a staffing standpoint, with its prison cell block layout of rooms around a cold, dark, sunless cell yard. The rooms are thus spread out unnecessarily around the cell yard, limiting social contacts among the mobility-limited residents compared to what they would be along a double-loaded corridor, and forcing staff to cover more ground to do even minimal work (which means understaffing if we are to take the applicant's staffing projections at face value). Further, because of the way this huge building is shoehorned onto the site, there is absolutely no place outdoors on the grounds where residents can stroll in their walkers. I am convinced that a major factor in my mother's long survival (she is now 95) was that she could go out of her institutional quarters and walk the equivalent of several blocks a couple of times per day. The proposed village expansion design, on the other hand, seems intended simply to become a prison for its elderly and feeble inmates, a mere profitable waystation along the path to a nursing home. ,J 7 There are a number of reasonable alternatives which solve problems presented by this project in its present form: 1. Reject the project outright. The present design merits such rejection. 2. Direct redesign, keeping the height down, and the bulk and mass compatible with the neighborhood. This may mean a smaller project. The developers allege they cannot make the project work financially without xx number of rooms. This is nonsense. As an architect familiar with the design of congregate facilities and as a consumer of this particular type of facility, I will share with you the following: When I shopped for an assisted living facility for my own mother in two large metropolitan areas, I FOUND NONE AS LARGE AS THIS PROPOSED FACILITY and all of them, thank you, were quite profitable. I would argue that the less institutional the better, as far as the residents are concerned. My experience suggests that 24 residents is plenty to make a stand- alone project of this sort viable. So don't be buffaloed by the developer's greed. 3. Direct relocation. If this project were on the Ramona end of the property, where there is ample empty land for it, almost all the neighbors' objections would evaporate. Why the developer is so intransigent in considering this relocation is unclear. But I'll wager that if the council said it's OK to put it there but not on its proposed site, it would appear there. Again, I urge you to uphold the appeal. Sincerely, 271 U, Richard Schmidt t � - L . r c ` I TGLcyel LUVY � �aUt w jUe7f- 7l5 e-cL `rF "Vf2`' cJt\tGi 4 0 Pe-K �tS ►�I [S [��i�1�1 VLtOre... �'�..it ct , i tis Ua u t- - 16t("J