HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/24(1)/2001, 1 - ROADHOUSE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY FILE #: GP/R/U/ER 108-00 MATT QUAGLINO, APPLICANT coon t hivmq D,v
acEnaa jzEpo t �'km`.6;1 A]
CITY O F SAN LUI S OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directoo
Prepared By: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate PlanneV
SUBJECT: ROADHOUSE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
CITY FILE#: GP/R/U/ER 108-00 MATT QUAGLINO, APPLICANT
CAO RECOM IENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission on January 24, 2001:
1. Adopt a resolution approving a General Plan amendment to change the land use
designation on a portion of the site from Medium-Density Residential to Services and
Manufacturing. (Attachment 6)
2. Introduce an ordinance approving the mitigated negative declaration and rezoning the site
from Medium-Density Residential with a Specific Plan overlay (R-2=SP) and Service-
Commercial (C-S) to Service-Commercial Mixed Use with a Specific Plan overlay (C-S-
MU-SP). (Attachment 7)
3. Adopt a resolution approving a use permit, thereby establishing a mix of uses for this
project and a parking reduction. (Attachment 8)
Regarding a fee waiver request not reviewed by the Planning Commission:
4. Deny the request for a waiver of the use permit fee.
REPORT IN BRIEF
On March 6, 2001, the City Council opened the public hearing and discussed the project and
issues related to creek setbacks, parking, and the proposed mix of uses. The Council continued
the item at the applicant's request. In doing so, the Council requested an estimate of project
water usage; a revised site plan showing how the project will accommodate creek setbacks; and
separate list of uses for each building, all of which are discussed in detail below.
The applicant is proposing to redevelop property at the southeast corner of Broad Street and El
Capitan, currently occupied by the House of Prayer church, with a mixed residential and
commercial project. The request requires a General Plan map amendment, a rezoning, a use
permit, a lot merger, and architectural review. The lot merger and architectural review
applications have not yet been submitted. City Council is being asked to review and take action
on the environmental initial study, the General Plan amendment, the rezoning, and the use
permit.
1-1
zzl
Council Agenda Report—April 24,2001
811 El Capitan:GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 2
The use permit has two components: a master list of uses and a requested 26% reduction in
required parking. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the use permit fee.
The initial environmental study recommends mitigation to reduce potential impacts regarding
issues such as noise, traffic, adjacency to the creek, cultural resources, and aesthetics to a less
than significant level. Mitigation measures 2 and 4 have been revised to reflect Council direction
regarding creek setbacks and maintenance of filtering devices in the parking areas.
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Applicant/Owner: Matt Quaglino, Covey III
Representative: Oasis Associates. Inc. and APS Architects
Zoning: Commercial-Service (C-S); Medium-Density Residential with a.Specific Plan overlay
(R-2-SP); and Conservation/Open Space (C/OS)
General Plan: Services and Manufacturing;Medium-Density Residential; and
Conservation/Open Space
Environmental Status: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared.
Project Action Deadline: Legislative projects are not subject to action deadlines.
Site Description
The 1.6 acre site is roughly U-shaped. It consists of two lots, which would be merged. One lot is
currently zoned R-2-SP. The other is zoned C-S, outside of the creek Open. Space zoning. The
two lots wrap around a lot developed with a discount carpet store that is not part of this project.
The existing building on site would be removed to make way for the two new buildings
proposed. To the east and south are residences. Various commercial uses line Broad Street in the
vicinity. The site is crossed by two creeks along its southerly boundary. (Attachment 1)
Revised Project Description in Response to Previous Council Action
The project layout has been revised to reflect the required 35-foot and 20-foot creek setbacks.
The commercial square footage has been reduced from 21,000 square feet to 17,000 square feet,
and the residential units have been increased .from 16 to 20 one-bedroom apartments. The
proposed building parallel with Broad Street would be occupied by commercial uses only. The
building roughly perpendicular to Broad street would have some commercial units facing the
parking lot on the ground floor. The remaining ground floor area and the second and third stories
would be occupied by apartments. (Attachment 2)
General Plan Amendment and Rezoning
Without a General Plan Amendment, the smaller R-2 lot would remain subject to Medium-
Density Residential development standards, consistent with the Zoning.Regulations and the Edna
Islay Specific Plan. Existing zoning would allow a single family house and a studio apartment. It
1-2
Council Agenda Report—April 24,2001
811 EI Capitan: GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 3.
would not allow the lot to be developed with only parking, as proposed, or with any type of
commercial use.
Without the Mixed-Use overlay zoning, the portion of the site currently zoned Service-
Commercial could not be developed with any residential uses other than a single caretaker
residence.
The General Plan amendment together with the Mixed Use overlay will enable roughly 17 more
dwellings than would otherwise be allowed on the project site. Both the General Plan Land Use
Element and the Zoning Regulations support mixed commercial and residential development.
See the Planning Commission staff report for additional discussion on project consistency with
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. (Attachment 11)
Edna Islay Specific Plan
The project is within the secondary planning area of the Edna Islay Specific Plan, which was
adopted in 1982. The plan is silent on the topic of mixed-use. The overlay is recommended
because the project site is within the boundaries of the specific plan. The specific plan was
adopted in 1986. It anticipated commercial development on the larger of the two site lots and
residential development on the smaller lot. The City subsequently adopted policies and
ordinances regarding mixed commercial and residential development. Staff.will process an
amendment to the specific plan in the future to facilitate mixed-use developments where deemed
appropriate within the specific planning area.
Use Permit
Mix of Uses:
The Zoning Regulations require a use permit as part of a mixed use rezoning in order to better
ensure compatibility between commercial and residential uses. The Planning Commission's
recommended list of uses requires administrative use permit approval for several uses which the
Commission felt warranted future review in terms of available parking and compatibility with the
on-site residents. (Attachment 8, Exhibit A)
The Council can further modify this master list of uses if deemed appropriate. Once approved,
only those uses included on the list would be allowed as part of the proposed project, unless
modified in the future through a use permit process.
At the March 5, 2001, Council Meeting, Councilman Schwartz asked that the uses be separated
by building in order to better ensure compatibility between residential and commercial uses. The
Council may also wish to consider whether or not to include certain uses based on parking
demand, given the request for a parking reduction.
1-3
J
Council Agenda Report—April 24,2001
811 EI Capitan:GP/R/[1/ER 108-00
Page 4
The applicant has reviewed the Planning Commission's recommended list of uses and feels that
only day care and catering may conflict with residential uses. He would prefer not to make a
distinction between buildings regarding allowable uses.
Staff has amended the Planning Commission's list to restrict the location of day care and
catering. The Council may wish to restrict other uses as well. (Attachment 8, Exhibit A)
Parking Reduction:
Use permit approval is also required for the applicant's request for a 16% mixed-use parking
reduction in addition to a 10% shared-use reduction as provided for in the Zoning Regulations.
The Planning Commission supported the full 30% reduction originally requested. Revisions to
the project in order to meet creek,setbacks.altered the requested parking reduction from 30% to
26%.
The Commission discussed the requested parking reduction in terms of available public transit
(closest stops are Fiero Lane and Marigold Center) availability of on-street parking (limited);
potential impact on the El Capitan residential neighborhood; and the project's proposal to provide
improved pedestrian access and shower and locker facilities for bicyclists.
One prospective resident of the El Capitan neighborhood outlined his concerns regarding site
development and potential impacts to the residential stretch of El Capitan if a parking reduction
were granted to the project. The City also received a letter from the owner of a business directly
across El Capitan from the project site expressing concern with the requested parking reduction.
(Attachment 5)
A total of 68 parking spaces are shown on a revised site plan, including two spaces in tandem.
Based on proposed commercial square footage, number of residential units, and certain
assumptions regarding likely users, roughly 90 spaces would be required without any parking
reduction. A 26% parking reduction for this project means roughly 22 or 23 fewer spaces than
would otherwise be required.
Staff supports a parking reduction for this project based on shared use of the parking lot and mix
of commercial and residential uses. However, staff does not support the use of tandem parking
because this arrangement is problematic in terms of maneuvering, and parking for this project
can easily be accommodated without having to resort to this sort of layout. Zoning regulations
provide for the use of tandem parking for residential uses only, and only when such an
arrangement is identified for the exclusive use by occupants of a designated dwelling, subject to
approval by the Community Development Director.
Lot Merger:
The conceptual site planning for the project shows the existing R-2 lot developed with project
parking. To avoid any possibility of separating this lot from the project in the future, the
requirement for a lot merger is included as a condition of use permit approval.
1-4
Council Agenda Report—April 24,2001
811 El Capitan: GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 5
Environmental Review
This project underwent extensive environmental review for issues such as noise, traffic,
adjacency to the creek, cultural resources, aesthetics, etc. Several studies (traffic, noise,
biological, geologic, view shed, archaeological and cultural) were prepared to enable analysis of
the project's potential impacts.
Based on analysis of the proposed project and the studies submitted, mitigation measures and
monitoring programs have been identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant' level.
Therefore, approval of a mitigated negative declaration is recommended. (Attachments 13 &
14and Exhibit B for both the General Plan amendment resolution and the rezoning ordinance)
Based on City Council comments and direction at the March 5, 2001 hearing, the initial study
and mitigation measures 2 and 4 have been revised to address the following:
Water Usage:
Based on the preliminary floor plans and the requested list of allowed uses for the site, the City's
Utilities Conservation Coordinator, Ron Munds, estimates that project water usage will be
roughly.4.03 acre feet per year. A memo from Mr. Munds is attached at the end of this report.
(Attachment 15)
Creek Setbacks:
Creek buffers are a primary mitigation measure for impacts on city creeks created by the General
Plan's Land Use Element designations. The Creek Setback Ordinance implements this mitigation
measure by interpreting creek protection policies into the form of specific standards.
One of the most significant issues associated with this project is.its adjacency to a creek. The
southwesterly property line is crossed by a tributary to Acacia Creek, sometimes referred to as
Islay Creek, which is in turn a tributary to the East Fork of the San Luis Creek. The creek
setback ordinance and the creek setback classes map stipulate a 35-foot setback for this stretch of
creek. A smaller tributary creek crosses the southeasterly comer of the site. The creek setback .
ordinance and creek setback classes map indicate a 20-foot setback for this creek.
Preliminary development plans showed the building and the parking area less than 20 feet from
the top of bank and edge of riparian vegetation. A revised site plan, submitted March 23, 2001,
shows the buildings and parking areas outside the required creek setbacks. (Attachment 2)
Biology Study:
The biology study submitted with the project application notes that, "neither the season nor the
weather were optimal" for surveying the full range of fauna and flora that may be present on site.
Nevertheless, it does identify ways in which the project could adversely impact the creek habitat
and recommends mitigation (p. 16, 17, and 18 of the biology report). Providing the project
1-5
I
Council Agenda Report—April 24,2001
811 El Capitan: GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 6
meets creek setbacks as required by the zoning ordinance and includes restoration of degraded.
creek areas, in addition to the mitigation recommended by the report, no significant adverse
impacts are anticipated. See recommended mitigation measures 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10 .
Planning Commission Review
This request was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 24, 2001. Attached are the
Planning Commission report, minutes, and resolution (Attachments 10, 11, & 12). On a vote of 5
to 1 (Commissioner Loh voting no and Commissioner Ready refraining due to a potential
conflict of interest), the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning, adoption
of a mitigated negative declaration; approval of a list of uses for the site; and approval of a 30%
parking reduction.
Reuuested Fee Waiver
The applicant's representative is requesting a waiver of a $1,620 use permit fee and will be
prepared to discuss this further at the hearing (See Attachment 3). The representative feels that
since the use permit is being reviewed in conjunction with the rezoning, as opposed to being
reviewed during a subsequent round of hearings, a waiver of fees is warranted.
The Zoning Regulations (Section 17.55.020) require use permit approval in conjunction with a .
rezoning in order to review and establish conditions for the proposed mix of uses. A use permit is
the appropriate mechanism for doing so since a rezoning cannot be conditioned. The additional
fee is also appropriate because mixed use rezonings involve more analysis than other rezonings
and require more detailed findings and conditions to ensure compatibility within a mixed use
project. The requested parking reduction is also being considered as part of the use permit.
Staff strongly recommends against ad hoc fee waivers, especially since fees are designed to
recoup only 45% of the estimated cost to the City for processing. Considerable staff time has
been spent on this project. Planning staff review of building plans for condition compliance and
environmental monitoring will also require a significant amount of time in the future - for which
there is no additional charge.
Furthermore, it is not unusual for a project to involve several applications that are reviewed
simultaneously. For instance a project could involve a subdivision, a use permit and
environmental review. Just because all three applications may be considered together in the.
interest of expeditious processing, this has not traditionally been grounds for waiving one or
more of the application fees.
To date no other mixed-use rezoning project has received such a waiver. Nor is there any adopted
administrative standard for granting a waiver in this case, as there is in the case of a non-profit
entity if constructing affordable housing. Granting a waiver in the absence of an administrative
standard would set a bad precedent.
1-6
Council Agenda Report—April 24,2001
811 EI Capitan: GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 7
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue action with direction to the applicant and staff.
2. Adopt the draft resolution(Attachment 9)denying the project based on findings.
3. Modify the draft ordinance and resolutions.
Alternative 3 would be an appropriate choice if-
a)
fa) the Council is concerned about impacts of the requested parking reduction on the
surrounding residential and commercial uses; or
b) if the Council would like to modify the list of allowed uses for the project; or
c). if the Council wishes to modify any of the recommended mitigation measures.
A 10% parking reduction based on a finding of multiple uses sharing the same parking lot would
be an alternative to the 26% reduction being requested. The Council could also consider
approving an additional 10% - rather than a 20%- reduction based on the mix of residential and
commercial uses on site for a total reduction of 20%. Approving a reduction of less than 26%
will likely require a reduction in commercial square-footage or the number of dwellings.
The Council may also wish to revise the list of allowed uses to simply eliminate those uses which
typically generate a high demand for parking, such as churches, meeting rooms, and schools.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity map
2. Reduced project plans
3. Letter from the applicant's representative, Carol Florence, requesting a fee waiver
4. Section of the Zoning Ordinance requiring a use permit
5. Letter from Michael Morin regarding parking
6. Draft resolution approving the General Plan Map Amendment
7. Draft ordinance approving the Rezoning
8. Draft resolution approving the Use Permit
9. Draft resolution denying the project
10. Planning Commission minutes
11. Planning Commission staff report
12. Planning Commission resolution
13. Signed mitigation agreement
14. Environmental initial study (Attachments to the initial study are provided in a Council
reading file)
15. Memo from Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation Coordinator
1-7
/ \
R-2 Pv
v
os
/
o
Vicinity Map 811 EI Capitan
N GP/R/U/ER/
Ao mr 180 Feet ARC 108=00
1-8
Ww
iP 33:r3 t:3i.� a ..c.
�?wp�,1' O
l.
OM E •._; �
14
among b: No
�17YY�1��� •=si:ull�'1�\•p�,v����,_--- !%•l': ■Yl���ri�lu��__._.._ 110' �.
IYair�YUr'YA�ii�GiG�����i�Gtioi�Yo�-- -., iliii�Li+•�.r,�I
Cap
all NN
H.
ME
FEZ
�YYi -Y :, iaa.i.i•1i:�ifi.f.iaa.i.ia i.J iaiJ.i� iil.i.ia'.f.i.l,
•IC �.��� 111 •i
s� r,
IY�. ,�• Ijl ry
P 1
Y.,
� •Y
�u.•� .A da .a-..
■'�_._. p1 �i 1 1' f
�!ra i@.
A'='-rlliuumu Irk..
an
�,[ = ,C_s-w!k•:fU-. �:�:.3• !R..-:
•�.,iK!Ri Iry / ,�
P
.�► �SY.7 i. R?1-'111�.
� I♦1 ,
FOR
ME OR HER
MER
PER IdER .0
I�:CL■�
PON
WE
MOR . . Enow —M I M:
oil
MsUNOM �,_�S i S.
ON M—wME ME
LEI HEME
UNEW
EF a
mnryl
Ilial HWE
E ��
�I�:= HE
i � ■c:i�— r
����??I em
I�•:ii ' i o BE
am
l�iil. I
.::i�_ M
..� fin' .
.w n.
ME
I�iii■ I' V0 ■ce oil■=I M
■
- 'I/�f N• i ■:e old:: �
IiEi.�•— nmCER
■�—. MM
��
� F.R.
MM M
l_..IME na ; ■ e M■==
�INEW
IN
:
le n�
n NEWr ■"
i MENd'C' q o Lec L52I res
R:
i.�..— I:. . .^ R O
LOW w
WEPdp
IIS::. Iww
`_. WEE
NEW
10 R.
1
e 7
I
o _IS I���I11 M
mn An
• L
I ;L�III�1la �I: �:.1limmi
18�1
. I-• i O- .t ..Iit� 0�••
h ;'� �► ��::il�i Il�c: ■cc tc?,yj r
is=Met ilk:: ■Cc ■:cam
I�::� !.: ..•Inoom
193 . . n
It•92 :.IMINE s lei: �:_ �::law
Two
mu
LAW
�1
—110 • �. jl�e ■c° .::r�
�— Gu Is Ills.
M.
I�eEI■ ■cE ■00
OF mm
.,r mm Hills
1�� Ilan
Ip= 1M:c �'
I=:EI14M
�
11i 1�1 _LEM
If mw
I�::I■ ■ c ■::ns
�I�ccu ■2c ■Saute
I■ I '. I—I!_ ,_ ; _ '1�::i j , ,ISI
TCC • �j 1■rj ,
Ise • h i , m:::a� ICS I IIp �i u ISS L :u� 0,■ ■ It:ISN,— —I�i
I � ■Sc ■SSi� JiESI;e 1135 ItsS ,.:: I�SC�■ : _IW■
Imo— pMOR ■ :••I. IHSS I• ■. ■--LM
11♦cE1�,I�,v� �'i eee li Ii•SE I" I._I
Ilie r - (mm I 1■1IF.'�� I�::��! ■?5 ■00¢�� - IiEE�� ■cc \?E4mi
. :� ISE2 I. S �i
1101 mi I�iE o:i
1�=51■ ■=c ■SS iii 1�Sc �— lam
� I,IiEE L3S ■=c'tui ,u=
■• ur IicC ■=S ■::WINE ��h�x�
,� = ni :� 1�9E ■ c ■cEWWIIlcch
�.II r •-•II rar r
I!•c t °S!o I�eE It' 'Art LW
S LS unrir ■ 1bEE �::LIF
ilu
rl it/
iff
0
i
ATTACHMENT Ora
,p 1
_________.__.r-,may ________
_ q
ti
71 q
r� � � 1 • t� a:su
i
C 6 •r I
m me r t • i � .
I I
I I
I .y
.ur• r4 9
� t
I c
I
1 I
I
y r I
r I
I
1 � I
1
i I
1A. I I . 1 1
a m 1 r r r ❑ s -
F1
r
N ]n
i
0
o -
i t ISite Plan ROADROUSR-p eMixed Use Demlgmenl
f �i�ltlll}I�i7ll[ q.r. � ... �<
�III'i��il]�il� ulaw..n
0
CH
i P to .'•
} ..,11
e
< to
1vY �t
k `
' r
� �� � �6'nnm`�rynnn•'mmo`�inm�°mem°°'nnn�
` n k
a
C
J -ZZ, p�
EM
El � .
iia d
.' ,b 'n f`w � � {i � � S � < � L � +l � 0 n � � Q '� h a � r
a. nn•• S
+�' Ca g. Z v, oz ,n,n vs Z
Oz 9pp "Fin-q.-
'�" °E= a$yay s s " F£r € %g # g� as EE(°If F ' g 43 at r1
�F ��RT 37.0 O $&$ i % +� !.1 Be a�Y t } A A}�S � x � €} '�� Z
^p� • .o �uL p"'a p o n n n F p n o � � � � P n n n po n
s> � 0 0 D O O P v C
a25."9420
v ail
�t Landscape y -
t( tiFtt{Iit'�'1( Concept Plan N:
ATTACHMENT
PROPOSED PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
YARDS/SETBACKS
• Building °A' 10 feet Broad Street&20 feet/El Capitan Way
• Building`B' 80 feet Broad Street
• Building`B' -Creek 35 feet&20 feet East Fork SLO Creek
BUILDING HEIGHTS
• High Natural Grade Elevation 162.00 feet
• Low Natural Grade Elevation 160.50 feet
-Difference 1.50 feet
• Average Elevation 161.25 feet
-Plus Max.Allowable Height 35.00 feet
• Maximum Building Height 196.25 feet
• Proposed Building Heights* 198.33 feet - Elevator Tower Building `B'
194.16 feet - Highest Portion Building `B'
187.50 feet - Highest Portion Building `A'
*(to be revised to reflect revised/projected 100 year flood elevation)
PARKING
Parking Required S.F./Units Ratio Spaces Required
Commercial Service 16,868 1/300 56.23
Residential 20 1:5/unit 30.00
Guest Parking 20 1/5 units 4.00
Parking Req'd. Subtotal 90.23
20%Parking Reduction(MU) ( 18.05)
10% Shared Parking.Reduction ( 9.02)
TOTAL PARKING REQ'D. 63.00
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 68.00
* (57 standard, 6 compact,4 HC, 1 tandem)
Other On-site Requirements Spaces Required
Motorcycle 4.0 required
Bicycle (68 spaces x 15%) 10.0 required
Provided: Short Term 10% 6.0
Long Term 80% 8.0
Loading Space 1.0
re,V/
Oasis Associates,Inc. 28 June 2000,rev.March 2001
Covey III—The Roadhouse I.4 1 Supplement to GPA/Rezoning ruf
1 4
I�
ATTACHMENT
O A 5 1 5
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
AND PLANNING
19 January 2001
City Council Members
c/o Mr.Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manager
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
RE:THE ROADHOUSE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT—811 El Capitan Way,San Luis Obispo,CA
Planning Commission Use Permit-Fee Reduction/Waiver Request
Gentlemen and Ladies,
This office represents the applicant, Covey III, in their attempt to pursue a General Plan Amendment
(GPA) and rezone (R-2 to C-S, and subsequently, to C-S/MU). On 28 June 2000, we submitted our
application for the aforementioned entitlement and development plan for a mixed-use
commercial/residential project located on the comer of Broad Street and EI Capitan. Included with this
application was a supplemental document that described the project, proposed development standards,
environmental analysis, etc. As part of the request for the MU overlay, the application included a list of
uses that we determined would be compatible for a residential/commercial project.We assumed at the time,
that the request for the MU zone would necessarily include the required Planning Commission approval of
the uses(use permit approval)as part of the GPA/rezone request and,associated fees.
Application fees,included with our application,are as follows:
• General Plan Amendment/Rezoning $ 4,554.00
• Initial Study of Environmental Impact 1,202.00
• Fish and Game 1,275.00
TOTAL FEE PAID 7 104.00
We are now being asked to pay a Planning Commission Use Permit fee totaling$1,620.00.While we are
compelled to pay the fee to assure that the project continues to be processed,we believe that the request is
onerous, and respectfully request your consideration for a fee waiver or fee reduction. It is our contention
that the Use Permit fee would more correctly be applied to an applicant who was solely requesting the
Planning Commission to review the proposed mix of uses within an MU zone, and not as part of a
comprehensive GPA/rezone package.Thank you for your careful consideration.
JRe ,OCIAC.ce,Agent
COVEY III
Attachment-Check No.4582-$1,620.00
cc: M. Quaglino 00-0026 mstrcorr/cmf
K.Hampian,CAO C:IRoadhouselrw$usepermitfeeredwaiver.doc
805.541.4509
FAX 805.546.0525
3427 MIGUELITO CT
SAN LUIS ISP0 Fy
CALIFORNIAORNIA 93401 j (\��`-�J)/� 115
CaU am.cw».w�
ATTACHMENT 4
C. Use permit approval by the Planning Commission is
Chapter 17.55: MIXED USE required prior to establishing any use within the MU zone,
except that this provision does not apply to changes of use
(MU) ZONE within an existing building. The use permit requirement
allows the Planning Commission to determine proposed
uses compliancewith the MU zone,compatibility with each
Sections: other and their surroundings, and consistency with the
17.55.010 Purpose general plan.
17.55.020 Application and procedure
17.55.030 Property development standards 17.55.030 Property development standards
17.55.040 Mandatory findings Property development standards shall be those of the
17.55.010 Purpose underlying zone. However, use-permit approval may
include more provisions and standards to assure
The MU zone, in combination with any other zone,permits compatibility of uses and surroundings, or less restrictive
combining uses on a site which otherwise would not be standards,to the extent allowed by use-permit approval in
allowed or required. other sections of these regulations,to make particular use
combinations more feasible.
The primary purpose of the MU zone is to permit
combining residential uses and commercial uses on a
single parcel, although any combination of uses may be 17.55.040 Mandatory findings
approved by the City. The MU zone is intended to A In granting a use permit pursuant to this chapter, the
promote a compact city, to provide additional housing planning Commission must make the following findings:
opportunities (including affordable housing opportunities),
which is the first priority, and to reduce auto travel by (1) The projects mixed uses are consistent with the
providing services, jobs, and housing in proximity. The general plan and are compatible with their surroundings,
City desires the safety provided by having residential with neighboring uses,and with each other.
components in commercial areas.
(2)The projects design protects the public health, safety,
17.55.020 Application and procedure and welfare.
A.Application of the MU zone may be initiated by: (3) The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than
single-use development of the site. This finding must
(1) The City Council or Planning Commission,to ensure enumerate those benefits,such as proximity of workplaces
that mixed residential and commercial uses will be and housing, automobile trip reduction, provision of
included when certain parcels are developed or affordable housing, or other benefits consistent with the
redeveloped;or purpose of this chapter.
(2)An applicant,to obtain permission for a mix of uses not B. To require property development standards more
otherwise allowed. restrictive than those of the underlying zone, the Planning
Commission must make one of the following findings:
B. Each ordinance adopting an MU zone shall specify:
(1) Site-specific property development standards are
(1)The types of uses which are required or allowed to be needed to protect all proposed uses of the site, in
combined; particular residential uses.
(2) Any standards for the uses locations or their (2) Site-specific property development standards are
relationships to each other, needed to make the project consistent with the intent of
these regulations.
(3) Any issues specific to the site or the intended
combination of uses which must be resolved by the design (3) The preponderance of the development proposed for
of the project the site is of a type not normally permitted in the
underlying zone, so property development standards for
the zone where such development is normally found are
appropriate.
city oG san tuts oatspo 83 zontnq aequlations 1-16
Fax From: Michael Morin, owner, Morin Bros. �vreign ,ATTACHMENT
Automotive, 4090 Broad St., SLO (Corner of El Capitan & Broad)
To: City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
RE: Application# ER 108-00, 811 El Capitan, SLO
Dear Sirs,
I am concerned about the possible parking reductions the developer is
requesting. I have no problem with use changes and creek setbacks. I feel
the use he requests is appropriate and any development within the city will
be in good taste and an asset to our little "neighborhood". I would like to
point out, however,that no matter what the planning commission hopes,
until alternative transportation is a viable alternative, each and every one of
the employees, residents, and customers or clients visiting, living, or
working there will drive his or her own car there, most likely by themselves.
In our previous location at 3000 McMillan Ave..; if I did not arrive before
7:40 am, I could not park on the street in front of my business. McMillan
Ave. at least was not residential. El Capitan will be residential from @ 50
yards back from Broad St. to its end. The houses are small and each one has
a driveway, which limits the available curb space. Parking on Broad St.
itself is possible, but dangerous. It is already a challenge to turn right out of
El Capitan, let alone left. I can imagine what it will be like if we have to
sight through a line of parked cars, SW's and pick ups. A nearby street
that might serve as an example of what it could become is Fiero Lane. I urge
you to keep this in mind as you make your deliberations.
Thank You
Michael Morin
1-17
ATTACHMENT 6
RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 811-EL CAPITAN FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING
(GP/R/U/ER 108-00)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 24, 2001, and
recommended approval of the proposed map amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 6, 2001, and on April 24,
2001, and has considered testimony of interested parties,the records of the Planning Commission
hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed map amendment is consistent with other
policies of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's mitigated Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed
project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.. The Council hereby adopts
said mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the mitigation measures and monitoring
program as outlined in Exhibit B, herein incorporated by reference, into the project.
SECTION 2. The Land Use Element map is amended as shown on Exhibit A, attached.
SECTION 3. The Community Development Director shall cause the amendment to be reflected
in documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use.
SECTION 4. This amendment shall take affect at the expiration of 30 days following approval.
On motion of , seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2001.
1-18
ATTAcHHMENT 6
Resolution No. (2001 Series)
Page 2
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
141i�.
*1A J Jorgensen
1-19
EXHIBIT A
ATTACHMW 6
811 EL CAPITAN 053-411-003
i
Medium-Density Residential
to Services and Manufacturing
I
vicinity ma
General Plan Map Amendment GP/R 108-00
1-20
ATTACHMENT d
ORDINANCE NO. ........ (2001 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A
SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY (R-2-SP)AND SERVICE-COMMERCIAL (C-S)
TO SERVICE-COMMERCIAL MIXED USE WITH A SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY
ZONE (C-S-MU-SP)
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 811 EL CAPITAN (GP/R/U/ER 108-00)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 24, 2001,
and recommended approval of the rezoning (R 108-00) to change the designation on the City's
zoning map from Medium-Density Residential with a Specific Plan overlay and Service-
Commercial to Service-Commercial Mixed Use with a Specific Plan overlay zone, for property
located at 811 El Capitan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, March 6, 2001, and April
24, 2001, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the
Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact with Mitigation Measures as prepared by staff and reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines
that the project's Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program
adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning,
and reflects the independent judgment of the. City Council. The Council hereby adopts said
Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program as outlined in the
attached Exhibit B.
SECTION 2. Fes. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed rezoning
from Medium-Density Residential with a Specific Plan overlay and Service-Commercial to
Service-Commercial with the Mixed Use overlay zoning, for property located at 811 El Capitan,
makes the following findings:
1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan,
specifically Land Use Element Policy 3.7, Mixed Uses, which states that "Compatible mixed
uses in commercial districts should be supported.
1-21
l �l
J
ATTACHMENT y
Ordinance No. (2001 Series)
811 El Capitan ATTACHMENTi
Page 2
2. The proposed uses as stipulated in Use Permit U 108-00 will comply with the MU zone, are
compatible with each other and their surroundings, and are consistent with the General Plan
(SLO Municipal Code Section 17.55.020C.).
3. The project is consistent with the purpose of the Mixed Use zone which is to allow the
combining of residential and commercial uses on a single parcel.
4. A Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was prepared by the Community
Development Department on December 27, 2000, which describes potentially significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed rezoning and associated project
development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached
Exhibit B being incorporated into the project.
SECTION 3. Action. The request to change the City's zoning map designation from
Medium-Density Residential with a Specific Plan overlay and Service-Commercial to Service-
Commercial Mixed Use with Specific Plan overlay zoning, for property located at 811 El
Capitan, is hereby approved.
SECTION 4. Adoption.
1. The zoning map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A.
2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in
documents which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing and use.
SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall
go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage and after the approval of a.
General Plan Map Amendment (GP/R 108-00) to change the designation for a portion of the
project site from Medium-Density Residential to Services and Manufacturing.
INTRODUCED on the day of , 2001, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by
the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of , 2001, on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
1-22
ATTACHMENT 6
Ordinance No. (2001 Series)
811 El Capitan
Page 3
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ty omf f7eyo. Jorgensen
1-23
S-SP-PD ,' EXHIBIT A
-
-2-S -P
PP��PN
C-S-S-SP
R - -
R-2- P
to
S-M -
O C-S to C-S-MU 5P
�O
GP�`Np5
/OS
c
-1 -
GP/R/U/ER 108-00 lRezone fr®m C-S and
tv ®2®SP t® C®SwM u -s p
A
0 40 80 120 Feet 1-24
Exhibit B: Mitigation Me; s
GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page I ATTACATTACHMENT6
EXHIBIT B
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program for
Mixed Use project at 811 El Capitan
GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Land Use
1. The General Plan land use map designates creeks as open space. The proposed rezoning
exhibit shall show the areas within the creek corridor — between the top of creek bank
and/or outer edge of riparian vegetation,whichever is greater—as Open Space.
Monitoring Program: Review and action on the proposed rezoning.
Geology
2. The project shall be designed so that building footprints and parking areas are setback
a minimum of 20 feet from the top of bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is
greater, for the small unnamed tributary creek that crosses the southeast corner of the site,
and 35 feet from the top of bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, for
the segment of the tributary of Acacia Creek which flows generally parallel to and on the
easterly side of Broad Street and crosses the southwest corner of the site, consistent with
the creek setback ordinance, and as shown of the Creek Setback Classes Map. Any
request for a lesser setback shall be considered by the Planning Commission and City
Council together with the application for rezoning:
3. Site grading and improvements shall be designed to direct water away from the top of
bank and shall be consistent with the recommendations in the soils engineering report and
slope stability evaluation prepared by GeoSolutions.
Monitoring Prow-am: Creek setback exceptions require review and approval of a use
permit. The approved creek setback shall be staked with rigid fencing prior to the start of
site grading or demolition. Grading and building plans will be reviewed for compliance
with the soils engineering report and slope stability evaluation prior to issuance of a
permit.
Water
4. 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 through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to
ensure efficient pollutant removal by the property owner to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
5. To be consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 regarding porous paving, the
project shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use
1-25
Exhibit B: Mitigation Me<
GP/RiuiER 108-00 -- ATTACHMENT "d
Page 2
porous paving or decomposed granite for any patio and walkway areas in the creek
setback.
6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include a detail showing how and where
roof drainage will be conveyed in a non-erosive manner.
7. Plans submitted for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission must
clearly demonstrate how the new buildings will meet the minimum requirements of the
City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations, and how any necessary revisions, such
as a change in finish floor elevation, to the preliminary plans submitted for the rezoning
and environmental review application will affect ADA requirements and building height.
Monitoriniz Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of
occupancy.
Air Ouality
8. The project shall include to the satisfaction of the APCD and the Community
Development Director:
a. Short- and long-term (lockers) bicycle parking for both the commercial and
residential uses;
b. A pedestrian connection to Broad Street near the apartments (as shown on 6.28.00
plans);
c. Eating facilities and outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on
site during the lunch hour;
d. Extensive shade tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative
emissions from automobiles;
e. Sodium lights in the parking lot;
f. Dual-glazed windows;
g. Wall and ceiling insulation to exceed Title 24 requirements; and
h. Energy efficient appliances, furnaces, and wall heaters.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project
architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community
Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the
feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features.
Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of
occupancy.
Biological Resources
9. The applicant shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be
recorded with the County Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney and the
1-26
Exhibit B: Mitigation Met �3
GP/RAJ/ER 108-00 ATTACHMENT 7
Page 3
Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building or grading permit.
The agreement shall include the following provisions:
a. Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space area to
the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager.
b. Grant to the City the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the property
owner fails to perform, and to assess the property owner for expenses incurred, and
the right of the City to inspect the site to assure conditions of the agreement and
project approval are being met.
c. The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the property owner in
accordance with the creek preservation and maintenance agreement as approved
by the City.
d. Erosion control and revegetation to restore the health of the riparian area
consistent with Land Use Element policies.
Monitoring Pro ream: Review and approval of agreement prior to building permit
issuance.
10. Exterior project lighting at the rear of buildings along the creek shall be limited to
bollard lighting along,the proposed path at the top of bank to the satisfaction of the City's
Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director.
Monitoring Program; Architectural review and building permit issuance, and release of
occupancy.
En r
11. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:
a. Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use;
b. Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements;
c. Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting;
d. Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural
ventilation;
e. Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and
f. Dual glazed windows.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project
architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community
Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the
feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features.
Monitoring Program: Architectural review and building permit issuance, and release of
occupancy.
1-27
Exhibit B: Mitigation Mea
GP/R/U/ER 108-00 ATTACHMENT a
Page 4
Traffic and Circulation
12. The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property
along El Capitan for public street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of way
(additional parkway behind sidewalk) and that portion of the northwesterly comer of the
property at the comer of El Capitan & Broad (State Hwy. 227) necessary to accommodate
a new City standard 9.1m (30 ft) radius curb return and handicap ramp, to the satisfaction
of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans.
13. The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public street
frontages, consisting of a 67 wide integral sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway ramps, a
handicap ramp at the comer, streetlights; a sidewalk incorporated into the Caltrans bridge
(Broad St.) and street pavement (between existing structural pavement and new frontage
improvements), to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans (Broad
St.).
14. Plans submitted to the Architectural Review Commission shall clearly show to scale
the required right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements relative to the proposed on-
site improvements.
15. The applicant shall apply for a use permit for the proposed parking reduction. Action
on the request shall take into account available public transit, available on-street parking,
the potential impact on the El Capitan residential neighborhood, the location and design
details for long term bicycle parking and related amenities, other amenities to encourage
walking and bicycling to the site, and the likelihood for additional bicycle parking to
offset demand for vehicle spaces.
16. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show long term bicycle parking for
both the commercial area and the apartments that is adequately sized to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Director. The long-term bicycle parking for the commercial uses shall
be installed as part of the shell building construction together with common shower,
toilet,and clothes locker facilities.
17. To avoid interference with Airport operations:
a. The applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County prior to issuance of
building permits.
b. Project occupants and land uses shall comply with the land use compatibility
matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan for properties in the Zone 5.
Conditionally compatible uses (including dwellings) shall occupy no more than
60% of the project floor area.
c. Lease and rental agreements shall disclose that the property is in an airport flight
traffic zone and that noise impacts may occur as a result of this. Such disclosure
1-28
Exhibit B: Mitigation Mea
GP/R/U/ER 108-00 — ATTACHMENT d
Page 5
statement shall be submitted to the Airport Manager for review and approval prior
to occupancy.
d. Radio transmissions which may interfere with airport operations shall be
prohibited.
e. Soundproofrtg shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations
consistent with the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance and the ALUC's
recommended conditions of approval.
f. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down lights that do not shine skyward or
interfere with airport operations. Search lights and strobe lights shall be
prohibited.
Monitoring Pro ram: Architectural review and building permit issuance, and release of
occupancy.
Noise
18. To comply with the City's Noise Element and conditions of approval recommended
by the Airport Land Use Commission:
a. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 40
decibels.
b. Other interior areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 45
decibels.
c. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a maximum noise
exposure of 60 decibels.
d. Common residential/commercial outdoor areas must be designed to achieve a
maximum noise exposure of 65 decibels.
19. The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in the
noise study prepared for this project by Krause Engineering Services, date September 21,
2000, and shall include any additional measures necessary to meet requirements
established by the Airport Land Use Commission.
Monitorin Program: To monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures, the applicant
shall arrange for a qualified noise consultant to take interior and exterior sound level
readings at the completion of construction and prior to occupancy. The number and
location of readings shall be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
If readings do not meet specified objectives, a qualified noise consultant shall identify
additional measures necessary to meet the objectives. Such measures shall be
incorporated into the project prior to release of occupancy.
Utilities and Service Systems
20. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site
1-29
Exhibit B:Mitigation Mea s
GPS[ER 108-00 _ ATTACHMENT
Page 6
recycling. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show the exterior location for
collecting recycling from both the commercial users and the on-site residents to the
satisfaction ofthe.garbage collection company.
21. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
22. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted
with the demolition and building permit applications for review and approval by the
Community Development Director. If asbestos is present, its removal must comply with
National Emissions Standards.for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the satisfaction of the Air
Pollution Control District.
Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of
occupancy.
Aesthetics
23. The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application
shall include a color and materials board with samples of the actual colors and materials
proposed for the buildings and/or color photographic excerpts from manufacturers' cut
sheets depicting the proposed roofing, windows and doors, exterior walls, columns,
exterior lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also include a construction detail of
the mechanical equipment proposed and its roof-mounted installation; a construction
detail of window and sill installation;a detail of the proposed cornice and eave design; a
detail of the proposed upper level columns and the metal awnings on the east elevation of
Building A; a detail of the overflow scuppers for the decks; a detail of short-term bike
racks; a detail of long term bicycle parking in both the commercial area and the
residential units; and any other design detail which the Community Development Director
deems necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed project.
24. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties.
The maximum height of any parking lot lighting, including fixtures, standard and base,
shall not be higher than 15 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at the
finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles. Any
individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located above the fust floor of the building
and shall direct light downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be subject to review and
approval by the Architectural Review Commission.
Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of
occupancy. The applicant shall submit a photometric diagram of parking lot lighting for
review and approval as part of the building permit application.
1-30
Exhibit B: Mitigation Mea.
GPIM/ER 108-00
Page 7 ATTACHMENT
Cultural Resources
25. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within
150 feet of object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall
be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval,
implemented by the applicant.
If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above
mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify
the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures.
Monitoring Program: A qualified archaeologist shall survey the site once demolition and
initial site grading are completed. Prior to foundation inspection, the archaeologist shall
submit a summary report of the survey.
1-31
ATTACHMENT 8
RESOLUTION NO. (2001Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A USE PERMIT
ESTABLISHING A MASTER LIST OF USES AND A PARKING REDUCTION
FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 811 EL CAPITAN (GP/R/U/ER 108-00)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on January 24, 2001,
and recommended approval of a use permit to establish a mix of uses on site and to allow a 26%
parking reduction for property located at 811 El Capitan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 6, 2001, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission
hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a parking reduction and the mix of uses attached
as Exhibit A are consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances.
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the use permit have been evaluated
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental
Guidelines (ER 108-00);
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's mitigated Negative Declaration with the recommended mitigation therein adequately
addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the
independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said mitigated Negative
Declaration(ER 108-00). Mitigation measures are attached as Exhibit B.
SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. A 10% parking reduction is consistent with the intent of the zoning regulations which is to
consolidate parking and minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking when typical
demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities. In this case, several
commercial uses would share a common parking area with residential uses.
2. A 16% mixed-use parking reduction, in addition to the shared use parking reduction, is
appropriate for this project because the times of maximum parking demand from the various
uses will not coincide, specifically parking for the residential uses is likely to be greater in the
evening while demand for commercial spaces is likely to be higher during the day. This
finding assumes the project will include at least 14 residential units.
3. The project's proposed mix of uses is consistent with the General Plan, which encourages
mixed residential and commercial development, with uses that are compatible with the
project's surroundings,with neighborhood uses, and with each other.
1-32
/ 0
ATTACHMENT
Resolution (2001 Series)
U 108-00
Page 2
4. The project's design protects the public health, safety and welfare.
5. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site, such
as promoting a compact city, providing more housing than would otherwise be possible;
potentially reducing auto trips by providing jobs, housing and services in proximity; and
increasing safety by having residential uses in commercial areas.
SECTION 3. Parking Reduction. The request for a use permit for a 10% shared-use and
a 16%mixed-use parking reduction is hereby approved, subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant shall merge the two lots underlying the project site.
2. None of the parking spaces shall be arranged in tandem.
SECTION 4. Master List of Uses. A master list of allowed and conditionally allowed
uses is hereby approved for this project and attached as Exhibit A.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. Approval of this use permit (U 108-00) shall become
effective at the same time the project rezoning becomes effective, which will be
30 days after final passage of the rezoning ordinance, and in no case sooner than
approval of the General Plan Map Amendment(GP/R 108-00).
Upon motion of , seconded by , and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2001.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
1-33
ATTACHMENT $
Resolution (2001 Series)
U 108-00
Page 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i tto eyf Jo ensen
1-34
EXHIBIT A J
Approved List of Uses for 811 El Capitan ATfAGHMM 8
GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Allowed Uses:
1. Advertising and related services(graphic design,writing,mailing, addressing,etc.).
2. Banks and savings and loans.
3. Barbers, hairstylists, manicurists,tanning centers.
4. Caretaker's quarters.
5. Catering Services*
6. Computer services.
7. Credit reporting.
8. Day care center.*
9. Delivery services.
10. Detective and security services.
11. Dry cleaning pick-up point.
12. Dwellings.
13. Florist.
14. Offices(contractors).
15. Offices(engineering).
16. Photocopy services,quick printers.
17. Photofinishing-retail
18. Photofinishing-wholesale; and blueprinting and microfilming service.
19. Photographic studios.
20. Post offices and public and private postal services.
21. Repair services(small household appliances, locksmiths, seamstress; shoe repair).
22. Research and development.
23. Restaurants,sandwich shops,take-out food.
24. Retails sales(indoor sales of building materials and gardening supplies).
25. Retail sales and repair of bicycles.
26. Retail sales(auto parts and accessories except tires and batteries).
27. Secretarial and related services.
28. Ticket/travel agencies.
29. Utility companies-engineering and administration offices.
30. Wholesale and mail-order sales.
Uses Allowed Subject to Administrative Use Permit Approval (to enable evaluation
of compatibility with residential uses and availability of parking):
1. Antennas (municipal, commercial, and public utility broadcasting and wireless
communications).
2. Broadcast studios.
3. Churches, synagogues,temples,etc.
4. Laboratories(medical,analytical research).
5. Organizations, offices and meeting rooms.
6. Printing and publishing.
7. Retail sales (appliances, furniture and furnishings, musical instruments; data processing
equipment, business, office and medical equipment stores; catalog stores; sporting goods,
outdoor supply).
8. Schools-business,trade, recreational, or other specialized schools.
Prohibited in the same building with residential uses.
loft 1-35
Exhibit B: Mitigation MeasWcs
GP/R/U/ER 108-00 ATTACHMENT
Page 1
EXHIBIT B
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program for
Mixed Use project at 811 El Capitan
GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Land Use
1. The General Plan land use map designates creeks as open space. The proposed rezoning
exhibit shall show the areas within the creek corridor — between the top of creek bank
and/or outer edge of riparian vegetation,whichever is greater—as Open Space.
Monitoring Program: Review and action on the proposed rezoning.
Geology
2. The project shall be designed so that building footprints and parking areas are setback
a minimum of 20 feet from the top of bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is
greater, for the small unnamed tributary creek that crosses the southeast corner of the site,
and 35 feet from the top of bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, for
the segment of the tributary of Acacia Creek which flows generally parallel to and on the
easterly side of Broad Street and crosses the southwest corner of the site, consistent with
the creek setback ordinance, and as shown of the Creek Setback Classes Map. Any
request for a lesser setback shall be considered by the Planning Commission and City
Council together with the application for rezoning.
3. Site grading and improvements shall be designed to direct water away from the'top of
bank and shall be consistent with the recommendations in the soils engineering report and
slope stability evaluation prepared by GeoSolutions.
Monitoring Program: Creek setback exceptions require review and approval of a use
permit. The approved creek setback shall be staked with rigid fencing prior to the start of
site grading or demolition. Grading and building plans will be reviewed for compliance
with the soils engineering report and slope stability evaluation prior to issuance of a
permit.
Water
4. 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 through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to
ensure efficient pollutant removal by the property owner to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
5. To be consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 regarding porous paving, the
project shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use
1-36
Exhibit B: Mitigation Mewtn,s _
GP/R/U/ER 108-00 ATTACHMENT G
Page 2
porous paving or decomposed granite for any patio and walkway areas in the creek
setback.
6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include a detail showing how and where
roof drainage will be conveyed in a non-erosive manner.
7. Plans submitted for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission must
clearly demonstrate how the new buildings will meet the minimum requirements of the
City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations, and how any necessary revisions, such
as a change in finish floor elevation, to the preliminary plans submitted for the rezoning
and environmental review application will affect ADA requirements and building height.
Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of
occupancy.
Air Ouality
8. The project shall include to the satisfaction of the APCD and the Community
Development Director:
a. Short- and long-term (lockers) bicycle parking for both the commercial and
residential uses;
b. A pedestrian connection to Broad Street near the apartments (as shown on 6.28.00
plans);
c. Eating facilities and outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on
site during the lunch hour;
d. Extensive shade tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative
emissions from automobiles;
e. Sodium lights in the parking lot
f. Dual-glazed windows;
g. Wall and ceiling insulation to exceed Title 24 requirements; and
h. Energy efficient appliances, furnaces, and wall heaters.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project
architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community
Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the
feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features.
Monitoring Proms: Architectural approval, building permit. issuance, and release of
occupancy.
Biological Resources
9. The applicant shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be
recorded with the County Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney and the
1-37
i
Exhibit B: Mitigation Meas.
GP/R/U/ER 108-00 ATTACHMENT
Page 3
Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building or grading permit.
The agreement shall include the following provisions:
a. Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space area to
the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager.
b. Grant to the City the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the property
owner fails to perform, and to assess the property owner for expenses incurred, and
the right of the City to inspect the site to assure conditions of the agreement and
project approval are being met.
c. The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the property owner in
accordance with the creek preservation and maintenance agreement as approved
by the City.
d. Erosion control and revegetation to restore the health of the riparian area
consistent with Land Use Element policies.
Monitoring Program: Review and approval of agreement prior to building permit
issuance.
10. Exterior project lighting at the rear of buildings along the creek shall be limited to
bollard lighting along the proposed path at the top of bank to the satisfaction of the City's
Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director.
Monitoring Program: Architectural review and building permit issuance, and release of
occupancy.
Energy
11. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:
a. Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use;
b. Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements;
c. Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting;
d. Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural
ventilation;
e. Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and
f. Dual glazed windows.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project
architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community
Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the
feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features.
Monitoring Program: Architectural review and building permit issuance, and release of
occupancy.
1-38
Exhibit B: Mitigation Meas,s
GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 4
ATTACHMENT v
Traffic and Circulation
12. The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property
along El Capitan for public street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of way
(additional parkway behind sidewalk) and that portion of the northwesterly comer of the
property at the corner of El Capitan & Broad (State Hwy. 227) necessary to accommodate
a new City standard 9.1m (30 ft) radius curb return and handicap ramp, to the satisfaction
of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans.
13. The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public street
frontages, consisting of a 6' wide integral sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway ramps, a
handicap ramp at the corner, streetlights, a sidewalk incorporated into the Caltrans bridge
(Broad St.) and street pavement (between existing structural pavement and new frontage
improvements), to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans (Broad
St.).
14. Plans submitted to the Architectural Review Commission shall clearly show to scale
the required right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements relative to the proposed on-
site improvements.
15. The applicant shall apply for a use permit for the proposed parking reduction. Action
on the request shall take into account available public transit, available on-street parking,
the potential impact on the El Capitan residential neighborhood, the location and design
details for long term bicycle parking and related amenities, other amenities to encourage
walking and bicycling to the site, and the likelihood for additional bicycle parking to
offset demand for vehicle spaces.
16. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show long term bicycle parking for
both the commercial area and the apartments that is adequately sized to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Director. The long-term bicycle parking for the commercial uses shall
be installed as part of the shell building construction together with common shower,
toilet, and clothes locker facilities.
17. To avoid interference with Airport operations:
a. The applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County prior to issuance of
building permits.
b. Project occupants and land uses shall comply with the land use compatibility
matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan for properties in the Zone 5.
Conditionally compatible uses (including dwellings) shall occupy no more than
60%of the project floor area.
c. Lease and rental agreements shall disclose that the property is in an airport flight
traffic zone and that noise impacts may occur as a result of this. Such disclosure
1-39
1
Exhibit B: Mitigation MeabWcs
GP/R/U/ER 108-00 ATTACHMENT
Page 5
statement shall be submitted to the Airport Manager for review and approval prior
to occupancy.
d. Radio transmissions which may interfere with airport operations shall be
prohibited.
e. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations
consistent with the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance and the ALUC's
recommended conditions of approval.
f. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down lights that do not shine skyward or
interfere with airport operations. Search lights and strobe lights shall be
prohibited.
Monitoring Program: Architectural review and building permit issuance, and release of
occupancy.
Noise
18. To comply with the City's Noise Element and conditions of approval recommended
by the Airport Land Use Commission:
a. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 40
decibels.
b. Other interior areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 45
decibels.
c. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a maximum noise
exposure of 60 decibels.
d. Common residential/commercial outdoor areas must be designed to achieve a
maximum noise exposure of 65 decibels..
19. The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in the
noise study prepared for this project by Krause Engineering Services, date September 21,
2000, and shall include any additional measures necessary .to meet requirements
established by the Airport Land Use Commission.
Monitoring Program: To monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures, the applicant
shall arrange for a qualified noise consultant to take interior and exterior sound level
readings at the completion of construction and prior to occupancy. The number and
location of readings shall be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
If readings do not meet specified objectives, a qualified noise consultant shall identify
additional measures necessary to meet the objectives. Such measures shall be
incorporated into the project prior to release of occupancy.
Utilities and Service Systems
20. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site
1-40
Exhibit B: Mitigation Meas s
GP/R/U/ER 108-00 ATTAMI'u ENT U
Page 6
recycling. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show the exterior location for
collecting recycling from both the commercial users and the on-site residents to the
satisfaction of the•garbage collection company.
21. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works..
22. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted
with the demolition and building permit applications for review and approval by the
Community Development.Director. If asbestos is present, its removal must comply with
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the satisfaction of the Air
Pollution Control District.
Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of
occupancy.
Aesthetics
23. The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application
shall include a color and materials board with samples of the actual colors and materials
proposed for the buildings and/or color photographic excerpts from manufacturers' cut
sheets depicting the proposed roofing, windows and doors, exterior walls, columns,
exterior, lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also include a construction detail of
the mechanical equipment proposed and its roof-mounted installation; a construction
detail of window and sill installation; a detail of the proposed cornice and eave design; a
detail of the proposed upper level columns and the metal awnings on the east elevation of
Building A; a detail of the overflow scuppers for the decks; a detail of short-term bike
racks; a detail of long term bicycle parking in both the commercial area and the
residential units; and any other design detail which the Community Development Director
deems necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed project.
24. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties.
The maximum height of any parking lot lighting, including fixtures, standard and base,
shall not be higher than 15 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at the
finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles. Any
individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located above the first floor of the building
and shall direct light downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be subject to review and
approval by the Architectural Review Commission.
Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of
occupancy. The applicant shall submit a photometric diagram of parking lot lighting for
review and approval as part of the building permit application.
1-41
Exhibit B: Mitigation Mean S'
GP/R/U/ER 108-00 ATTA6iHNIEENT 5
Page 7
Cultural Resources
25. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within
150 feet of object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall
be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval,
implemented by the applicant.
If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above
mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify
the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures.
Monitoring Program: A qualified archaeologist shall survey the site once demolition and
initial site grading are completed..Prior to foundation inspection,the archaeologist shall
submit a summary report of the survey.
1-42
RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) ATTACHMENT
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING THE REQUESTS TO: 1) AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
AND REZONE PROPERTY AT 811 EL CAPITAN FROM SERVICE-COMMERCIAL
AND MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY TO
SERVICE-COMMERCIAL MIXED USE; AND 2) APPROVE A USE PERMIT TO
ESTABLISH A LIST OF USES AND A PARKING REDUCTION (GP/R/U/ER 108-00)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on January 24, 2001,
and recommended approval of GP/R/U/ER 108-00, a request to 1) amend the General Plan Land
Use Map and rezone property from C-S, Service-Commercial, and R-2-SP, Medium-Density
Residential with a Specific Plan overlay, to C-S-MU, Service-Commercial Mixed Use; and 2)
approve a use permit to establish a list of uses and a parking reduction for a site located at 811 El
Capitan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing.on March 6, 2001, and on
April 24, 2001, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of
the Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff,
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed general plan amendment, rezoning,
and use permit are inconsistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The project is inconsistent with the General Plan and other applicable City
ordinances because [Council to specify reasons].
SECTION 2. Action. The request (GP/R/U/ER 108-00) for a general plan amendment,
rezoning, and use permit for property located at 811 El Capitan is hereby denied.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2001.
1-43
Resolution No. (2001 Series) ATTAtIT 9
Denial of GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 2
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
1-44
Draft Planning Commission 1 tes AnACHM 1 (]
January 24, 2001 -
Page 9
Commr. Lo\2-4-1.
staff how many people could reside in the house without a use
permit.
Don Wrightat occupancy is based upon the size of the bedrooms; it is usually
two personom. This house has nine bedrooms and can accommodate
approximatople.
AYES: s. Osbor and Peterson
NOES: rs. Aiken, C per, Whittlesey, and Loh
REFRAIN: r. Ready
The motion -1.Commr. Coved to den thea ea ased upon the findings contained in the
staff re ort_and. the evidence presented befoh the Commission. Commr. Whittlesey
seconded the.motion.
Vice Chairman Peterson felt the residence was\Boardersco
than a year and is
comfortable that the Sand Boarders constitute ahe conditions of the
original use permit should be revisited.
Commr. Aiken said he would like to see the Saorward for new use
permit with recognition as a fraternity.
AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Whittlesey, Aike
NOES: Commrs. Peterson and Osborne
REFRAIN: Commr. Ready
The motion carried 4-2-1.
3. 811 and 903 EI Capitan Way: GP/R and ER 108-00; Requests to amend the Land
Use Element Map and Zoning Map designations from C-S and R-2 to C-S-MS (with
C/OS portion to remain); possible creek setback exceptions; possible parking
reductions; a use permit for mixed uses, and environmental review; Covey III,
applicant.
Chairman Ready refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest, as the
applicant is a business client of his.
Associate Planner Mcllvaine presented the staff report and recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council (1) approve a mitigated
negative declaration of environmental impact, (2) rezone portions of the property
outside of the creek corridor from Service-Commercial and Medium-Density Residential
to Service Commercial Mixed Use, and (3) approve a use permit establishing .allowed
uses for the project and a parking reduction.
1-45
Draft Planning Commission rtes ATTACHMENT ] o
January 24, 2001
Page 10
Commr. Cooper noted that the Crossroads project had incorporated separate enclosed
parking and asked if specific parking spaces could be designated for specific uses for
this project.
Associate Planner Mcllvaine reported the Crossroads was developed prior to the
adoption of the City's Mixed-Use Ordinance. It was developed .as a planned
development with designated residential parking.
Commr. Cooper asked staff to review the implications of the creek setback exception.
Associate Planner Mcllvaine stated given that the existing building will be removed and
the site will be substantially graded, etc., any kinds of provisions to continue the lesser
setback would not apply in this case. A creek maintenance and preservation agreement
is addressed by a mitigation measure.
Commr. Whittlesey asked if a site plan is before the Commission.
Associate Planner Mcllvaine replied no.
Commr. Loh expressed concern about future creek bank stabilization, landscaping,
setback limits and parking design/on-site circulation.
Commr. Osborne questioned commercial and residential parking requirements and
asked staff to review the proposed parking reductions.
Commr. Loh questioned staff on bicycle and motorcycle parking requirements.
There were no further comments orquestions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, requested a Planning Commission recommendation
to the City Council of approval of the project. She explained that the rezoning would
allow for better utilization of the somewhat awkwardly shaped parcel and the creation of
a balanced development between a residential and commercial use in a unique project
setting. She described the benefits of the zoning and the ability of the project to provide
affordable housing within walking distance to jobs, shopping, parks/open space, and
other residential uses. She felt the parking reduction request could be granted solely
upon the ordinance sections that addressed the reduction for shared parking and
mixed-use parking. She distributed photos of the site and addressed the three-foot
additional dedication on El Capitan Way, noting the existing face of curb will not change
locations. She requested that if the right-of-way line is moved three feet, that setback
be initiated from that additional three feet. In reference to Condition 9, she felt the open
space easement agreement should be specific. She noted they have committed to a
20-foot setback on the site.
1-46
Draft Planning Commission �`ites ,i ATTACHMENT 10
January 24, 2001 '
Page 11
The Commission questioned Ms. Florence on parking reductions, possible residential
targets/occupants, and the noise study baselines.
Scott Seacrest, 676 Pismo Street, future EI Capitan homeowner, questioned the
granting of a parking reduction because there is little extra parking in the area. He felt
the one lot that faces EI Capitan should not be occupied by commercial development;
because it would be disruptive to the character of the street. The open space areas
should not be reduced and the creek should be protected. Traffic in the area is
increasing and will be further impacted by this project. Unique features of the area
should be protected.
Commr. Whittlesey asked for comment on the commercial lot facing EI Capitan. Mr.
Seacrest stated he would prefer a parking lot to a commercial building at this location.
Matt Quaglino, applicant, stated they are sensitive to the parking issues and spoke in
support of the mixed-use aspect of the project. He urged approval of the requests.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Osborne felt this was excellent mixed-use project utilizing a constrained site.
Vice Chairman Peterson complimented the applicants on their project. He said he was
impressed with the mixed-use concept and project design.. He recommended a Broad
Street pedestrian access be made more visible/usable.
Commr. Whittlesey supported the residential aspect of the project and recommended
conditioning perpetuity of a certain number of residential units.
Commr. Whittlesey moved to recommend that the City Council (1) approve the
mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, (2) rezone the portions of the
Property outside the creek corridor from Service-Commercial and Medium-Density
Residential to Service-Commercial Mixed Use, and (3) approve a use permit
establishing allowed uses for the project and aparking reduction, with the following
changes: . (A) That the last sentence of Finding 6, page 6, reflect that the prosect will
include at least 12 residential units (B) that the last sentence of Condition 4, page 7
reflect that the separator must be regularly maintained by the property owner to ensure
efficient pollutant removal; (C) that the first sentence of Condition 9, page 8, reflect that
the applicant shall execute a creek preservation and maintenance agreement...; (D)
include a Condition 29 stating that the second and third floor of,Building B shall maintain
a residential use; (E) include a Condition 8i, "A pedestrian connection from Buildinq A to
Broad Street"; (F)the deletion of Condition 15, page 9; (G) that Condition 27, page 12,
reflect that the applicant is to provide a current tenant lease spaces and required
parking prior to release of occupancy, and (H) that Numbers 2, 5, 8, 18, 24; 28, and 31
of the Proposed List of Uses on page 15 be conditionally allowed with an Administrative
1-47
Draft Planning Commission 1 tes
Page January24, 200 - ATTACHMENT 1
Use Permit. Commr. Cooper seconded the motion.
AYES: Commrs. Whittlesey, Cooper, Aiken, Osborne, and Peterson
NOES: Commr. Loh
REFRAIN: Commr. Ready
The motion carried 5-1-1.
4. Citywide: GPA and ER 149-00; Update to the City's General Plan Parks and
Recreations Element and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Due to the lateness of the hour. Commr. Cooper moved to continue this item to a date
uncertain. The motion was seconded.bv Commr. Aiken and unanimously approved.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
5. Staff:
Agenda Forecast:
February14 — Parks and Recreation Element.
6. Commission:
The Commission and staff thank Chairman Ready for his years of service on the
Commission. Chairman Ready resigned due to relocating out of the city limits.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
to the next regular meeting scheduled for February 14, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in Council
Chamber.
Electronically submitted February 5,2001,
Leaha K. Magee
Recording Secretary
1-48
LArr_A"W
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM a .3
BY: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: January 24,2001
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER: GP/R/A/ER 108-00
PROJECT ADDRESS: 811 and 903 El Capitan
SUBJECT: Request to amend the land use map and the official zoning map to rezone portions of the
property outside of the creek corridor at the comer of El Capitan and Broad Street from Service-
Commercial and Medium-Density Residential to Service-Commercial Mixed Use, and a use permit
request to establish a list of uses and a mixed-use parking reduction.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that City Council:
1. Approve a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact;
2. Rezone portions of the property outside of the creek corridor from Service-Commercial and
Medium-Density Residential to Service-Commercial Mixed Use, and
3. Approve a use permit establishing allowed uses for the project and a parking reduction.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant wishes to rezone property at the comer of EI Capitan and Broad Street outside of the
creek corridor from Service-Commercial (C-S) and Medium-Density Residential (R-2) to Service-
Commercial Mixed Use (C-S MU) to enable construction of a mixed commercial and residential
development. The area of the property within a creek corridor would remain in Conservation Open
Space (C/OS), established at the time of the Fuller Road Annexation. The Planning Commission
reviews zoning amendments and makes a recommendation to the City Council, which takes a final
action on such requests. In addition to the general plan amendment, rezoning, and use permit, the
project requires a lot merger and architectural review of the buildings, site planning, and landscaping.
Data Summary
Applicant/Owner: Matt Quaglino, Covey III
Representative: Oasis Associates. Inc.
Zoning: Commercial-Service (C-S); Medium-Density Residential (R-2); and Conservation/Open
Space (C/OS)
General Plan: Services and Manufacturing; Medium-Density Residential; and Conservation/Open
Space
Environmental Status: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared.
Project Action Deadline: Legislative projects are not subject to action deadlines.
1-49
` ATTACHMENT
Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01
Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 2
Site Description
The 1.6 acre site is roughly U-shaped, and wraps around a lot developed with a discount carpet store.
To the east and south are residences. Various commercial uses line Broad Street in the vicinity. The
site is crossed by a creek along its southerly boundary.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to rezone the site outside of the creek corridor Service-Commercial Mixed Use
(C-S MU); merge the two existing lots; demolish the existing structure; and construct two new
buildings—one with two floors of commercial space and one with one floor of commercial space and
two floors of apartments above. Roughly 21,000 square feet of commercial space and 14,000 square
feet of residential space (16 apartments) are proposed.
EVALUATION
Consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations
Land Use Element (LUE) policy 2.2.7 states that where housing can be compatible with offices or
other businesses, mixed use projects should be encouraged. LUE policy 3.7 states that compatible
mixed uses in commercial districts should be encouraged. Policy 3.5.8 notes that dwellings may be
allowed in the Services and Manufacturing areas as part of a specially approved mixed-use
development. Housing Element goals include provision of a variety of housing types and development
of housing on sites suitable for that purpose.
Mixed-use development is encouraged by the zoning regulations (Chapter 17.55). The stated purpose
of the Mixed Use zone is primarily to permit combining residential and commercial uses on a single
parcel to provide additional housing opportunitiesand reduce auto travel.
Conclusion: Rezoning is consistent with policies in the Land Use Element and with the Zoning
Regulations,both of which encourage mixed-use development.
Use Permit as Part ofthe Mixed Use Rezoning
The Zoning Regulations require approval of a use permit based on specified findings (see findings 2,
3, and 4 below under Recommendation) prior to establishing uses within an MU zone. The applicant.
has submitted a proposed list of uses which is attached to this report. Staff recommends the following
changes to the list of proposed uses:
1. Include the following uses as allowed`
Dry cleaning pick up point
1-50
- ATTACHMENT 1
Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01
Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 3
Florist
Dwellings
Research and development
2. Include the following as allowed subject to administrative use permit approval to enable evaluation
of hours of operation; parking demand; and compatibility with other uses on site and airport
operations:
Schools—business, trade, recreational, or other specialized schools
Churches, synagogues,temples, etc.
Antennas
Broadcasting studios
Conclusion: The proposed list of uses seems reasonable and should be compatible internally as well
as with the surrounding development. As indicated.above, staff is recommending a few minor changes,
primarily to include services convenient for on-site residents and to assure compliance with the Airport
Land Use Plan.
Residential Development Potential
Without the rezoning, the 9,238-square-foot R-2 lot could accommodate a maximum of 2.55 density
units (e.g. 2 one-bedroom dwellings and a studio). A caretakers unit would be allowed on the C-S
portion of the site. While there is no residential density standard for the Mixed Use zone, Land use
Element policy 3.5.8 Building Intensity suggests considering the maximum residential density allowed
in a neighboring residential area. Applying the R-2 density standard to the developable area of both
lots (not including the creek corridor) would enable 18 density units. The project proposes 14 one-
bedroom apartments, or 9.24 density units.
Conclusion: The Mixed Use rezoning enables far more dwellings than would otherwise be allowed by
existing zoning. The project as designed could accommodate additional dwellings subject to the
limitation on conditionally compatible uses recommended by the Airport Land Use Commission. (See
environmental mitigation measure 16b.)
Use Permit for Parking Reduction
The applicant is requesting a 20% mixed-use parking reduction in addition to a 10% shared-use
reduction as allowable by the zoning regulations. The initial environmental study recommends that
action on the requested parking reduction take into account available public transit (closest stops are
Fiero Lane and Marigold Center), availability of on-street parking (very limited on El Capitan and
none on Broad Street), the potential impact on the El Capitan residential neighborhood, the location
and design details for long term bicycle parking, other amenities to encourage walking and bicycling
to the site, and the likelihood for additional bicycle parking to offset demand for vehicle spaces.
1-51
ATTACHMENT 1
Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01
Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 4
Staff supports a 10% reduction in required parking based on multiple uses sharing the parking lot.
Staff supports an additional 20% reduction based on a mix of residential and commercial uses, which
will have different peak hour demands: Furthermore, the project will provide improved pedestrian
access and shower and locker facilities for bicyclists. The following table summarizes the parking
issue.
PARKING SUMMARY TABLE
Use Zoning Ordinance Project Proposal Staff Recommendation
Requirement
16 one-bedroom 16 X 1.5 =24 24 24
apartments
Residential Guest 1 per each 5 units=3 3 3
Parking
Commercial Space _Tper 200, 300 or 500 SF i per 300 SF assuming Staff agrees that 1 per 300
depending on the use. 21,000 SF of SF is a reasonable ratio for
Schools and churches predominantly office establishing a baseline
require as much as 1 per 40 space= 70 demand
SF
Residential Bicycle .2 long—term parking spaces Not shown 16 long term and 2 short
Parking for each unit=32 plus 2 term
short term "guest'spaces 2 longterm spaces for each
one-bedroom unit seems
excessive
Commercial Bicycle 15%of required vehicle 10 15%of 70= 1 I
Parking spaces 9 long-term and 2 short-term
However,this depends on
the commercial square
footage ultimately approved.
Motorcycle Parking 1 per 20 required vehicle 5 4
spaces
Parking Reduction Up to 10% for shared use; -20%for mixed-use 10%shared parking
Up to an additional 20% and 10%shared-use reduction and 20% mixed-
based on varying times of for a reduction of 30% use parking reduction for a
peak hour demand; and one total reduction of 30%
less vehicle space for each 5
extra bicycle spaces–up to No further reduction for
10% provision of extra bicycle
spaces
Environmental Review
The initial study identifies potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed
project. Mitigation is recommended related to land use, geology, air quality, transportation, biological
1-52
ATTACHMENT Y 1
Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01
Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 5
resources, energy resources,noise, utility and service system, aesthetics, and cultural resources. One of
the most significant issues related to this project is the setback from the creek and the potential impact
of the development on the creek habitat. Another significant issue is related to noise exposure from the
traffic as well as the airport. The Airport Land Use Commission has stipulated that sleeping areas
should be designed for a maximum exposure of 40 decibels — 5 decibels lower than the City's Noise
Ordinance would otherwise require. All recommended mitigation measures are listed in section 19 of
the initial study.
Conclusion: The initial environmental study recommends mitigation to reduce potential impacts to a
less than significant level.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the City Council deny the proposed rezoning and use permit,based on findings as
specified by the Planning Commission.
2. Continue review of the rezoning and use permit with specific direction to the applicant and staff.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Other department comments are attached to the initial study.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the initial study of environmental impact, and, based on findings, recommend approval of:
1) An amendment to the General Plan land use map and the official zoning map to rezone portions of
the property outside of the creek corridor at the corner of El Capitan and Broad Street from Service-
Commercial and Medium-Density Residential to Service-Commercial Mixed Use, and
2) A use permit to establish the list of uses proposed by the applicant with changes as recommended
by staff and a.30%reduction in required parking.
Findings:
1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared.by the Community Development Department on
December 27, 2000, which identifies potential environmental impacts associated with project
development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures contained in initial study ER
108-00 being incorporated into the project.
2. The project's proposed mix of uses is consistent with the General Plan, which encourages mixed
1-53
g1TACHMENT 1
Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01
Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 6
residential and commercial development, and compatible with its surroundings, with neighborhood
uses, and with each other.
3. The project's design protects the public health, safety and welfare.
4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site, such as
promoting a compact city, providing more housing than would otherwise be possible; potentially
reducing auto trips by providing jobs, housing and services in proximity; and increasing safety by
having residential uses in commercial areas.
5. A 10% shared use parking reduction is appropriate for this project because more than two uses will
share a common parking area.
6. A 20% mixed-use parking reduction, in addition to the shared use parking reduction, is appropriate
for this project because the times of maximum parking demand from the various uses will not
coincide, specifically parking for the residential uses is likely to be greater in the evening while
demand for commercial spaces is likely to be higher during the day. This finding assumes the
project will include at least 14 residential units.
Conditions:
Environmental Mitigation
Land Use
1. The General Plan land use map designates creeks as open space. The proposed rezoning exhibit
shall show the areas within the creek corridor — between the top of creek bank and/or outer edge of
riparian vegetation, whichever is greater—as Open Space.
Monitoring Programs Review and action on the proposed rezoning.
Geology
2. The project shall be designed so that building footprints and parking areas are setback a minimum
of 20 feet from the top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, consistent
with the creek setback ordinance.
3. Site grading and improvements shall be designed to direct water away from the top of bank and
shall be consistent with the recommendations in the soils engineering report and slope stability
evaluation prepared by GeoSolutions.
1-54
\
Planning Commision Meeting I/24/01 ATrACHMENT
Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 7
Monitoring Program: Creek setback exceptions require review and approval of a use permit. The
approved creek setback shall be staked with rigid fencing prior to the start of site grading or
demolition. Grading and building plans will be reviewed for compliance with the soils engineering
report and slope stability evaluation prior to issuance of a permit.
Water
4. 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 through the storm
water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal.
5. To be consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 regarding porous paving, the project shall
comply with the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use porous paving or
decomposed granite for any patio and walkway areas in the creek setback.
6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include-a detail showing how and where roof
drainage will be conveyed in a non-erosive manner.
7. Plans submitted for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission must clearly
demonstrate how the new buildings will meet the minimum requirements of the City's Flood Damage
and Prevention Regulations, and how any necessary revisions, such as a change in finish floor
elevation, to the preliminary plans submitted for the rezoning and environmental review application
will affect ADA requirements and building height.
Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy.
Air Quality
8. The project shall include to the satisfaction of the APCD and the Community Development
Director:
a. Short-and long-term(lockers) bicycle parking for both the commercial and residential uses;
b. A pedestrian connection to Broad Street near the apartments(as shown on 6.28.00 plans);
c. Eating facilities and outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during
the lunch.hour;
d. Extensive shade tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from
automobiles;
e. Sodium lights in the parking lot;
f. Dual-glazed windows;
g. Wall and ceiling insulation to exceed Title 24 requirements; and
h. Energy efficient appliances, furnaces, and wall heaters.
1-55
' ATTACHMENT 1
Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01
Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 8
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect
shall document why they were determined to be infeasible, The Community Development
Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating
these energy conserving features.
Biological Resources
9. The applicant shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be recorded with the
County Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director
prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. The agreement shall include the following
provisions:
a) Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space area to the
satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager.
b) Grant to the City the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the property owner fails
to perform, and to assess the property owner for expenses incurred, and the right of the City to
inspect the site to assure conditions of the agreement and project approval are being met.
c) The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the property owner in accordance with the
creek preservation and maintenance agreement as approved by the.City.
d) Erosion control and revegetation to restore the health of the riparian area consistent with Land
Use Element policies..
10. Exterior project lighting at the rear of buildings along the creek shall be limited to bollard lighting
along the proposed path at the top of bank to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resource Manager
and the Community Development Director.
Energy
11. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:
Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use;
Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements;
Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting;
Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural ventilation;
Lighting controls(occupancy and motion sensors); and
Dual glazed windows.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect
shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development
Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating
these energy conserving features.
1-56
\ ! ATTACHMENT ;
Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01
Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 10
d. Radio transmissions which may interfere with airport operations shall be prohibited.
e. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations consistent with
the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance and the ALUC's recommended conditions of
approval.
f. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with
airport operations. Search lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited.
Monitoring Program: Architectural approval,building permit issuance, and release of occupancy.
Noise
18. To comply with the City's Noise Element and conditions of approval recommended by the Airport
Land Use Commission:
a. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 40 decibels.
b. Other interior areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 45 decibels.
c. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of
60 decibels.
d. Common residential/commercial outdoor areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise
exposure of 65 decibels.
19. The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in the noise study
prepared for this project by Krause Engineering Services, date September 21, 2000, and shall include
any additional measures necessary to meet requirements established by the Airport Land Use
Commission..
Monitoring Program: To monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures, the applicant shall arrange
for a qualified noise consultant to take interior and exterior sound level readings at the completion of
construction and prior to occupancy. The number and location of readings shall be to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director. If readings do not meet specified objectives, a qualified
noise consultant shall identify additional measures necessary to meet the objectives. Such measures
shall be incorporated into the project prior to release of occupancy.
Utilities and Service Systems
20. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. Plans
submitted for architectural review shall show the exterior location.for collecting recycling from both
the commercial users and the on-site residents to the satisfaction of the garbage collection company.
21. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the satisfaction
of the Director of Public Works.
1-57
U AnAC�
Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01
Project Number GP/R/TJ/ER 108-00
Page 1 I
22. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted with the
demolition and building permit applications for review and approval by the Community Development
Director. If asbestos is present, its removal must comply with National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution Control District.
Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building,permit issuance, and release of occupancy.
Aesthetics
23. The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application shall include a
color and materials board with samples of the actual colors and materials proposed for the buildings
and/or color photographic excerpts from manufacturers' cut sheets depicting the proposed roofing,
windows and doors, exterior walls, columns, exterior lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also
include a construction detail of the mechanical equipment proposed;and its roof-mounted installation;
a construction detail of window and sill installation; a detail of the proposed cornice and eave design; a
detail of the proposed upper level columns and the metal awnings on the east elevation of Building A;
a detail of the overflow scuppers for the decks; a detail of short-term bike racks; a detail of long term
bicycle parking in both the commercial area and the residential units; and any other design detail
which the Community. Development Director deems necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed
project .
24. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The
maximum height of any parking lot lighting, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher
than 15 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at the finished grade directly beneath
the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles. Any individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located
above the first floor of the building and shall direct light downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be
subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission.
Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy. The
applicant shall submit a photometric diagram of parking lot lighting for review and approval as part of
the building permit application.
Cultural Resources
25. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within 150 feet of
object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Any
additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the
Community Development Director, and upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant.
Monitoring Program: A qualified archaeologist shall survey the site once demolition and initial site
1-58
ATrACHM&V
1
Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01
Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 12
grading are completed. Prior to foundation inspection, the archaeologist shall submit a summary report
of the survey.
Use Permit
26. The list of allowed uses shall include the changes as recommended in this report.
27. A 10% shared-use and a 20% mixed-use parking reduction is hereby approved. Baseline
calculations shall be based on a rate of 1 vehicle space per 300 square feet of commercial space in
addition to zoning regulation requirements for residential parking.
28. Long-term bicycle parking for residential uses shall be provided at a rate of 1.5 lockers per unit.
Attached:
Vicinity map
Rezoning map
List of proposed uses !
Proposed project plans (�+ht P'YJ kru' c
Environmental initial studyi1,� 1
J
1-59
ATTACHMENT 1 ;
Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01
Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 9
Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy.
Traffic and Circulation
12. The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property along El
Capitan for public street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of way (additional parkway
behind sidewalk) and that portion of the northwesterly corner of the property at the corner of El
Capitan & Broad (State Hwy. 227)necessary to accommodate a new City standard 9.1m (30 ft) radius
curb return and handicap ramp,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans.
13. The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public street frontages,
consisting of a 6' wide integral sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway ramps, a handicap ramp at the
corner, streetlights, a sidewalk incorporated into the Caltrans bridge (Broad St.) and street pavement
(between existing structural pavement and new frontage improvements), to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works and Caltrans (Broad St.).
14. Plans submitted to the Architectural Review Commission shall clearly show to scale the required
right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements relative to the proposed on-site improvements.
15. The applicant shall apply for a use permit for the proposed parking reduction. Action on the
request shall take into account available public transit, available on-street parking, the potential impact
on the El Capitan residential neighborhood, the location and design details for long term bicycle
parking and related amenities, other amenities to encourage walking and bicycling to the site, and the
likelihood for additional bicycle parking to offset demand for vehicle spaces.
16. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show long term bicycle parking for both the
commercial area and the apartments that is adequately sized to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director. The long-term bicycle parking for the commercial uses shall be installed as part of the shell
building construction together with common shower,toilet, and clothes locker facilities.
17. To avoid interference with Airport operations:
a. The applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County prior to issuance of building
permits.
b. Project occupants and land uses shall comply with the land use compatibility matrix of the San
Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. Conditionally compatible uses (including dwellings) shall
occupy no more than 60%of the project floor area.
c. Lease and rental agreements shall disclose that the property is in an airport flight traffic zone
and that noise impacts may occur as a result of this. Such disclosure statement shall be submitted
to the Airport Manager for review and approval prior to occupancy.
1-60
C' i ATTACHMENT
Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01
Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 10
d. Radio transmissions which may interfere with airport operations shall be prohibited.
e. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations consistent with
the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance and the ALUC's recommended conditions of
approval.
f. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with
airport operations. Search lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited.
Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy:.
Noise
18. To comply with the City's Noise Element and conditions of approval recommended by the Airport
Land Use Commission:
a. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 40 decibels.
b. Other interior areas must be designed to achieve a maximum no exposure of 45 decibels.
c. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of
60 decibels.
d. Common residential/commercial outdoor areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise
exposure of 65 decibels.
19. The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in the noise study
prepared for this project by Krause Engineering Services, date September 21, 2000, and shall include
any additional measures necessary to meet requirements established by the Airport Land Use
Commission.
Monitoring Program: To monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures, the applicant shall arrange
for a qualified noise consultant to take interior and exterior sound level readings at the completion of
construction and prior to occupancy. The number and location of readings shall be to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director. If readings do not meet specified objectives, a qualified
noise consultant shall identify additional measures necessary to meet the objectives. Such measures
shall be incorporated into the project prior to release of occupancy.
Utilities and Service Systems
20. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. Plans
submitted for architectural review shall show the exterior location for collecting recycling from both
the commercial users and the on-site residents to the satisfaction of the garbage collection company.
21. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the satisfaction
of the Director of Public Works.
1-61
i
A�a�
Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01
Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 11
22. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted with the
demolition and building permit applications for review and approval by the Community Development
Director. If asbestos is present, its removal must comply with National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution Control District.
Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy.
Aesthetics
23. The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application shall include a
color and materials board with samples of the actual colors and materials proposed for the buildings
and/or color photographic excerpts from manufacturers' cut sheets depicting the proposed roofing,
windows and doors, exterior walls, columns, exterior lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also
include a construction detail of the mechanical equipment proposed and its roof-mounted installation;
a construction detail of window and sill installation; a detail of the proposed cornice and eave design; a
detail of the proposed upper level columns and the metal awnings on the east elevation of Building A;
a detail of the overflow scuppers for the decks; a detail of short-term bike racks; a detail of long term
bicycle parking in both the commercial area and the residential units; and any other design detail
which the Community.Development Director deems necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed
proj ect.
24. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The
maximum height of any parking lot lighting,including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher
than 15 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at the finished grade directly beneath
the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles. Any individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located
above the first floor of the building and shall direct light downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be
subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission.
Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy. The
applicant shall submit a photometric diagram of parking lot lighting for review and approval as part of
the building permit application.
Cultural Resources
25. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within 150 feet of
object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Any
additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the
Community Development Director, and upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant.
Monitoring Program: A qualified archaeologist shall survey the site once demolition and initial site
1-62
AnA ,
Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01
Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Page 12
grading are completed. Prior to foundation inspection, the archaeologist shall.submit a summary report
of the survey.
Use Permit
26. The list of allowed uses shall include the changes as recommended in this report.
27. A 10% shared-use and a 20% mixed-use parking reduction is hereby approved. Baseline
calculations shall be based on a rate of 1 vehicle space per 300 square feet of commercial space in
addition to zoning regulation requirements for residential parking.
28. Long-term bicycle parking for residential uses shall be provided at a rate of 1.5 lockers per unit.
Attached:
Vicinity map
Rezoning map
List of proposed uses _.
Proposed project plans (AkIvil imt'Y
Environmental initial study1 �'I1�AieS
J
1-63
P _
F ATTACHMENT ] I
13�
13 V
LOS
` � �` ✓ � ` •"\ 1, - � '\
iu%nity 811 and 903 EI Capitan
N GP/R 108-00
A0- -100 200 -300 Feet
1-64
ATTACHMENT 11
Mao
a
\ � KFP�� �,�� ��il /� �cls I•.�w �,� ..
Existing R-2 K
Proposed C-S/MU
Existing C-S
Proposed C-S/MU
BEE
o
0°00000:•
000000
000 000000
00000 00000 .;::::::::
00000 000•.::•
00 000000
0 F 00000 00000
0000000 000
000000 0 .
0000
aa,.VApesed Ammtatim
®crosematl=Xkwn Spaea
n stat(t-1410111)
i�aadta�e o� I � AIRPORT DRIVE
®Senleo Commmdal(C4"
®Tearw cemmwww(CM or
Smvtea coma mdat(c-8) N
*
EXISTING FVUSR ROAD-AERO DRIVE ANNEXAMN
FIGURE 1 LAND USE- EXISTING/PROPOSED
Oasis Associates,Inc. 28 lune 2000
Covey III—The Roadhouse Supplement to GPA/Development Plan
1-65
` I
ATTACHMENT ] 1
PROPOSED LIST OF USES
The Commercial Service (CS) zone allows for a variety of land uses. While the Mixed Use zone
will allow for a residential component to be permitted with the CS zone and its allowable uses,
the applicant has carefully considered the most appropriate uses allowed and/or conditionally
allowed in the CS zone to provide for a compatible living/working condition. The following
represents a listing of those uses.
1. Advertising and related services(graphic design,writing;mailing,addressing,etc.).
2. Antennas.
3. Banks and savings and loans.
4. Barbers;hairstylists,manicurists,tanning centers.
5. Broadcast studios.
6. Caretaker's quarters.
7. Catering Services
8. Churches,synagogues,temples,etc.
9. Computer services.
10. Credit reporting.
11. Day care center.
12. Delivery services.
13. Detective and security services.
14. Food banks and package food distribution centers.
15. Laboratories(medical,analytical research).
16. Offices(contractors).
17. Offices(engineering).
18. Organizations,offices and meeting rooms.
19. Photocopy services,quick printers.
20. Photofinishing-retail
21. Photofinishing-wholesale;and blueprinting and microfilming service.
22. Photographic studios.
23. Post offices and public and private postal services.
24. Printing and publishing.
25. Repair services(small household appliances; locksmiths,seamstress, shoe repair).
26. Restaurants,sandwich shops,take-out food.
27. Retails sales(indoor sales of building materials and gardening supplies).
28. Retail sales(appliances, furniture,musical instruments; data processing equipment,business,
office,medical equipment stores; catalog stores; sporting goods;outdoor supply).
29. Retail sales and repair of bicycles.
30. Retail sales(auto parts and accessories except tires and batteries).
31. Schools-business,trade,recreational, or other specialized schools.
32. Secretarial and related services.
33. Ticket/travel agencies.
34. Utility.companies-engineering and administration offices.
35. Wholesale and mail-order sales.
Oasis Associates,Inc. 28 June 2000
Covey 111-The Roadhouse Supplement to GP.A/Rezoning Request
1.5 1-66
r ,ATTACHMENT 12
�►►����h�����ii���►�IIIIBI 1111 p���i� �iii���
III IIII
city osAn* tuis oulispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
January 29, 2001
Matt Quaglino,
Covey III
815 Fiero lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: GP/R and ER 108-00: 811 and 903 EI Capitan Way
Requests to amend the Land Use Element map and zoning map
designations from C-S and R-2 to C-S-MU (with C/OS portion to
remain); possible creek setback exceptions; possible parking
reductions; use permit for mixed uses; and environmental review
Dear Mr. Quaglino:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 24, 2001, recommended that the
City Council adopt the mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, approve
amendment to the General Plan land use map and the official zoning map to rezone
portions of the property outside of the creek corridor at the corner of EI Capitan and
Broad Street from Service-Commercial and Medium-Density Residential to Service-
Commercial Mixed Use, and approve a use permit to establish the list of uses proposed
by the applicant with changes as recommended by the Planning Commission, as well
as a 30% reduction in required parking, based on findings and subject to conditions
noted in the attached resolution.
The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and,
therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing
before the City Council on March 6, 2001. This date, however, should be verified with the
City Clerk's office at (805) 781-71.02.
If you have any questions, please contact Whitney Mcllvaine at (805) 781-7164.
Sincerely, cc: SLO County Assessor's Office
Carol Florence
Oasis Associates
3427 Miguelito Court
Ron d Whisenan SLO, CA 93401
Development Review Manager
chment: Resolution #5308-01
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activif�, j�
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf 805 1 781-7410. VV
ATTACHMENT 1
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5308-01
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the.City of San Luis Obispo did conduct
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on January 24, 2001, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under,application
GP/R and ER 108-00, Covey III, applicant.
ITEM REVIEWED:
Requests to amend the Land Use Element map and zoning map designations from C-S
and R-2 to C-S-MU (with C/OS portion to remain); possible creek setback exceptions;
possible parking reductions; use permit for mixed uses; and environmental review
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
811 and 903 EI Capitan Way
WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and
studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has
established existence of the following circumstances:
Findings
1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development
Department on December 27, 2000, which identifies potential environmental impacts
associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the
project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the
mitigation measures contained in initial study ER 108-00 being incorporated into the
project.
2. The project's proposed mix of uses is consistent with the General Plan, which
encourages mixed residential and commercial development, and compatible with its
surroundings, with neighborhood uses, and with each other.
3. The project's design protects the public health, safety and welfare.
1-68
Resolution No. 5308-01
Page 2 - J ATTACHMENT 1 �,
4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the
site, such as promoting a . compact city, providing more housing than would
otherwise be possible; potentially reducing auto trips by providing jobs, housing and '
services in proximity; and increasing safety by having residential uses in commercial
areas.
5. A 10% shared use parking reduction is appropriate for this project because more
than two uses will share a common parking area.
6. A 20% mixed-use parking reduction, in addition to the shared use parking reduction,
is appropriate for this project because the times of maximum parking demand from
the various uses will not coincide, specifically parking for the residential uses is likely
to be greater in the evening while demand for commercial spaces is likely to be
higher during the day. This finding assumes the project will include at least 12
residential units.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that GP/R and ER 108-00 be
approved, subject to the following conditions, including mitigation measures:
Environmental Mitigation
Land Use
1. The General Plan land use map designates creeks as open space. The proposed
rezoning exhibit shall show the areas within the creek corridor— between the top of
creek bank and/or outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater — as
Open Space.
Geology
2. The project .shall be designed so that building footprints and parking areas are
setback a minimum of 20 feet from the top of creek bank or edge of riparian
vegetation; whichever is greater, consistent with the creek setback ordinance.
3. Site grading and improvements shall be designed to direct water away from the top
of bank and shall be consistent with the recommendations in the soils engineering
report and slope stability evaluation prepared by GeoSolutions.
Water
4. 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 through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly
maintained by the property owner to ensure efficient pollutant removal.
5. To be consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 regarding porous paving, the
project shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and
use porous paving or decomposed granite for any patio and walkway areas in the
1-69
Resolution No. 5308-01
Page 3 -' ATTACHMENT 1. 2
creek setback.
6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include a detail showing how and
where roof drainage will be conveyed in a non-erosive manner.
7. Plans submitted for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission must
clearly demonstrate how the new buildings will meet the minimum requirements of
the City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations, and how any necessary
revisions, such as a change in finish floor elevation, to the preliminary plans
submitted for the rezoning and environmental review application will affect. ADA
requirements and building height.
Air Quality
8. The project shall include to the satisfaction of the APCD and the Community
Development Director:
a. Short- and long-term (lockers) bicycle parking for both the commercial and
residential uses;
b. A pedestrian connection to Broad Street near the apartments (as shown on
6.28.00 plans);
c. Eating facilities and outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay
on site during the lunch hour;
d. Extensive shade tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative
emissions from automobiles;
e. Sodium lights in the parking lot;
f. Dual-glazed windows;
g. Wall and ceiling insulation to exceed Title 24 requirements;
h. Energy efficient appliances, furnaces, and wall heaters; and
i. A pedestrian connection from Broad Street to Building A.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the
project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The
Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final
decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features.
Biological Resources
9. The applicant shall execute a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be
recorded with the County Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney and the
Community Development Director prior to issuance of.any building or grading
permit. The agreement shall include the following provisions:
a) Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space
area to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager.
b) Grant to the City the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the
property owner fails to perform, and to assess the property owner for expenses
1-70
Resolution No. 5308-01 _ATTACHMENT 1
Page 4 �
incurred, and the right of the City to inspect the site to assure conditions of the
agreement and project approval are being met.
c) The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the property owner in
accordance with the creek preservation and maintenance agreement as
approved by the City.
d) Erosion control and revegetation to restore the health of the riparian area
consistent with Land Use Element policies.
10. Exterior project lighting at the rear of buildings along the creek shall be limited to
bollard lighting along the proposed path at the top of bank to the satisfaction of the
City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director.
Energy
11. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use;
• Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements;
• Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting;
• Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural
ventilation;
• Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and
• Dual glazed windows.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the
project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The
Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final
decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features.
Traffic and Circulation /
12.The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property
along EI Capitan for public street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of
way (additional parkway behind sidewalk) and that portion of the northwesterly
corner of the property at the corner of EI Capitan & Broad (State Hwy. 227)
necessary to accommodate a new City standard 9.1m (30 ft) radius curb return and
handicap ramp, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans.
13. The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public street
frontages, consisting of a 6' wide integral sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway ramps,
a handicap ramp at the comer, streetlights, a sidewalk incorporated into the
Caltrans bridge (Broad St.) and street pavement (between existing structural
pavement and new frontage improvements), to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works and Caltrans(Broad St.).
14. Plans submitted to the Architectural Review Commission shall clearly show to scale
the required right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements relative to the
proposed on-site improvements.
1-71
Resolution No. 5308-01
Pages"' ATTACHMENT 2
15. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show long term bicycle parking for
both the commercial area and the apartments that is adequately sized to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The long-term bicycle parking for the
commercial uses shall be installed as part of the shell building construction together
with common shower, toilet, and clothes locker facilities.
16. To avoid interference with Airport operations:
a. The applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County prior to issuance
of building permits.
b. Project occupants and land uses shall comply with the land use compatibility
matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. Conditionally compatible
uses (including dwellings) shall occupy no more than 60% of the project floor
area.
c. Lease and rental agreements shall disclose that the property is in an airport flight
traffic zone and that noise impacts may occur as a result of this. Such disclosure
statement shall be submitted to the Airport Manager for review and approval
prior to occupancy.
d. Radio transmissions, which may interfere with airport operations, shall be
prohibited.
e. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations
consistent with the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance and the ALUC's
recommended conditions of approval.
f. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down lights that do not shine skyward or
interfere with airport operations. Searchlights and strobe lights shall be
prohibited.
Noise
17. To comply with the City's Noise Element and conditions of approval recommended
by the Airport Land Use Commission:
a. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 40
decibels.
b. Other interior areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of
45 decibels.
c. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a maximum
noise exposure of 60 decibels.
d. Common residential/commercial outdoor areas must be designed to achieve a
maximum noise exposure of 65 decibels.
18. The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in the
noise study prepared for this project by Krause Engineering Services, date
September 21, 2000, and shall include any additional measures necessary to meet
requirements established by the Airport Land Use Commission.
1-72
Resolution No. 5308-01 �
Page s J ATTACHMENT` 1 n
Utilities and Service Systems
19. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site '
recycling. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show the exterior location
for collecting recycling from both the commercial users and the on-site residents to
the satisfaction of the garbage collection company.
20. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
21. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted
with the demolition and building permit applications for review and approval by the
Community Development Director. If asbestos is present, its removal must comply
with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the satisfaction
of the Air Pollution Control District.
Aesthetics
22. The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application
shall include a color and materials board with samples of the actual colors and
materials proposed for the buildings and/or color photographic excerpts from
manufacturers' cut sheets depicting the proposed roofing, windows and doors,
exterior walls, columns, exterior lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also
include a construction detail of the mechanical equipment proposed and its roof-
mounted installation; a construction detail of window and sill installation; a detail of
the proposed cornice and eave design; a detail of the proposed upper level
columns and the metal awnings on the east elevation of Building A; a detail of the
overflow scuppers for the decks; a detail of short-term bike racks; a detail of long
term bicycle parking in both.the commercial area and the residential units; and any
other design detail which the Community Development Director deems necessary
to adequately evaluate the proposed project.
23. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties.
The maximum height of any parking lot lighting, including fixtures, standard and
base, shall not be higher than 15 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels
measured at the finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-
candles. Any individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located above the first
floor of the building and shall direct light downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be
subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission.
Cultural Resources
24. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earthwork
within 150 feet of object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by
a qualified archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the
archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and
upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant.
1-73
Resolution No. 5308-01 ATTACHMENT I et
9
Use Permit
25. The list of allowed uses shall be as shown on Exhibit A, attached.
26. A 10% shared-use and a 20% mixed-use parking reduction is hereby approved.
Baseline calculations shall be based on a rate of 1 vehicle space per 300 square
feet of commercial space in addition to zoning regulation requirements for
residential parking. The property owner shall maintain a current parking calculation
for the development.
27. Long-term bicycle parking for residential uses shall be provided at a rate of 1.5
lockers per unit.
28. The second and third floor of proposed Building B shall be maintained in residential
use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to
the City Council, approval of the proposal. The foregoing resolution was approved by
the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo on motion by Commr.
Whittlesey, seconded by Commr. Cooper, and on a separate roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Aiken, cooper, Whittlesey; Peterson and Osborne
NOES: Commr. Loh
ABSENT: Commr: Ready
Dated: January 24, 2001
1-74
EXHIBIT A
�-�' ATTACHMEN)' 1
Approved List of Uses
GP/R/U/ER 108-00
Allowed Uses:
1. Advertising and related services(graphic design, writing, mailing, addressing, etc.).
2. Banks and savings and loans.
3. Barbers, hairstylists,manicurists, tanning centers..
4. Caretaker's quarters.
5. Catering Services
6. Computer services.
7. Credit reporting.
8. Day care center.
9. Delivery services.
10. Detective and security services.
11. Dry cleaning pick-up point.
12. Dwellings.
13. Florist.
14. Offices(contractors).
15. Offices(engineering).
16. Photocopy services,quick printers.
17. Photofinishing-retail
18. Photofinishing-wholesale; and blueprinting and microfilming service.
19. Photographic studios.
20. Post offices and public and private postal services.
21. Repair services(small household appliances, locksmiths, seamstress, shoe repair).
22. Research and development.
23. Restaurants,sandwich shops,take-out food.
24. Retails sales(indoor sales of building materials and gardening supplies).
25. Retail sales and repair of bicycles.
26. Retail sales(auto parts and accessories except tires and batteries).
27. Secretarial and related services.
28. Ticket/travel agencies.
29. Utility companies-engineering and administration offices.
30. Wholesale and mail-order.sales.
Uses Allowed Subject to Administrative Use Permit Approval (to enable evaluation
of compatibility with residential uses and availability of parking):
1. Antennas (municipal, commercial, and public utility .broadcasting and wireless
communications).
2. Broadcast studios.
3. Churches, synagogues, temples, etc.
4: Laboratories(medical,analytical research).
5. Organizations, offices and meeting rooms.
6. Printing and publishing.
7. Retail sales (appliances, furniture and furnishings, musical instruments; data processing
equipment, business, office and medical equipment stores; catalog stores; sporting goods,
outdoor supply).
8.. Schools-business,trade, recreational, or other specialized schools.
I of 1
1-75
�i ATTACHMENT 1
Revised
Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures
Project: # ER 108-00
811 and 903 EI Capitan Way
This agreement is entered into by and between the City of San Luis Obispo and Covey
III on the 21st day of February , 2001. The following measures
are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Please
sign the original and return it to the Community Development Department.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
Land Use
1. The General Plan land use map designates creeks as open space. The proposed
rezoning exhibit shall show the areas within the creek corridor— between the top of creek
bank and/or outer edge of riparian vegetation,whichever is greater—as Open Space.
Geology
2. The project shall be designed so that building footprints and parking areas are
setback a minimum of 20 feet from the top of creek bank or edge of riparian
vegetation, whichever is greater, consistent with the creek setback ordinance.
3. Site grading and.improvements shall be designed to direct water away from the top
of bank and shall be consistent with the recommendations in the soils engineering
report and slope stability evaluation prepared by GeoSolutions.
Water
4. 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 through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly
maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal.
5. To be consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 regarding porous paving, the
project shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use
porous paving or decomposed granite for any patio and walkway areas in the creek
setback.
6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include a detail showing how and
where roof drainage will be conveyed in a non-erosive manner.
7. Plans submitted for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission must
clearly demonstrate how the new buildings will meet the minimum requirements of the
City's Flood Damage_and Prevention Regulations, and how any necessary revisions,
such as a change in finish floor elevation, to the preliminary plans submitted for the
rezoning and environmental review application will affect ADA requirements and
building height.
1-76
ER 108-00 -- J
Mitigation Agreement ATTACHMEM 1
Page 2
Air Quality
8. The project shall include to the satisfaction of the APCD and the Community
Development Director:
a. Short- and long-term (lockers) bicycle parking for both the commercial and
residential uses;
b. A.pedestrian connection to Broad Street near the apartments (as shown
on 6.28.00 plans);
c. Eating facilities and outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees
to stay on site during the lunch hour;
d. Extensive shade tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce
evaporative emissions from automobiles;
e. Sodium lights in the parking lot;
f. Dual-glazed windows;
g. Wall and ceiling insulation to exceed Title 24 requirements; and
h. Energy efficient appliances, furnaces, and wall heaters.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the
project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The
Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final
decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features.
Biological Resources
9. The applicant shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to
be recorded with the County Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney and
the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building or grading
permit. The agreement shall include the following provisions:..
a. Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open
space area to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager.
b. Grant to the City the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the
property owner fails to perform, and to assess the property owner for
expenses incurred, and the right of the City to inspect the site to assure
conditions of the agreement and project approval are being met.
c. The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the property owner in
accordance with the creek preservation and maintenance agreement as
approved by the City.
d. Erosion control and revegetation to restore the health of the riparian
area consistent with Land Use Element policies.
10. Exterior project lighting at the rear of buildings along the creek shall be limited to
bollard lighting along the proposed path at the top of bank to the satisfaction of the
City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director.
1-77
ER 108-00 — _J ATTACHMENT 1 .�
Mitigation Agreement
Page 3
Energy
11. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:
a. Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use;
b. Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements;
c. Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting;
d. Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural
ventilation;
e. Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and
f. Dual glazed windows.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the
project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The
Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final
decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features.
Traffic and Circulation
12. The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property
along EI Capitan for public street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of way
(additional parkway behind sidewalk) and that portion of the northwesterly corner of the
property at the corner of EI Capitan & Broad (State Hwy. 227) necessary to
accommodate a new City standard 9.1m (30 ft) radius curb return and handicap ramp,
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans.
13. The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public
street frontages, consisting of a 6' wide integral sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway
ramps, a handicap ramp at the corner, streetlights, a sidewalk incorporated into the
Caltrans bridge (Broad St.) and street pavement (between existing structural
pavement and new frontage improvements), to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works and Caltrans (Broad St.).
14. Plans submitted to the Architectural Review Commission shall clearly show to scale
the required right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements relative to the proposed
on-site improvements.
15. The applicant shall apply for a use permit for the proposed parking reduction.
Action on the request shall take into account available public transit, available on-
street parking, the potential impact on the El Capitan residential neighborhood, the
location and design details for long term bicycle parking and related amenities, other
amenities to encourage walking and bicycling to the site, and the likelihood for
additional bicycle parking to offset demand for vehicle spaces.
16. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show long term bicycle parking for
both the commercial area and the apartments that is adequately sized to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The long-term bicycle parkingif gie
ER 108-00 �� � \�' ATTACHMENT 1
Mitigation Agreement
Page 4
commercial uses shall be installed as part of the shell building construction together
with common shower, toilet, and clothes locker facilities.
17. To avoid interference with Airport operations:
a. The applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County prior to
issuance of building permits.
b. Project occupants and land uses shall comply with the land use
compatibility matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan.
Conditionally compatible uses (including dwellings) shall occupy no more
than 60% of the project floor area.
c. Lease and rental agreements shall disclose that the property is in an
airport flight traffic zone and that noise impacts may occur as a result of
this. Such disclosure statement shall be submitted to the Airport Manager
for review and approval prior to occupancy.
d. Radio transmissions which may interfere with airport operations shall be
prohibited.
e. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport
operations consistent with the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance
and the ALUC's recommended conditions of approval.
f. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down lights that do not shine skyward
or interfere with airport operations. Search lights and strobe lights shall
be prohibited.
Noise
18. To comply with the City's Noise Element and conditions of approval
recommended by the Airport Land Use Commission:
a. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure
of 40 decibels.
b. Other interior areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise
exposure of 45 decibels.
c. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a
maximum noise exposure of 60 decibels.
d. Common residential/commercial outdoor areas must be designed to
achieve a maximum noise exposure of 65 decibels.
19. The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in
the noise study prepared for this project by Krause Engineering Services, date
September 21, 2000, and shall include any additional measures necessary to meet
requirements established by the Airport Land Use Commission.
1-79
ER 108-00 _ �� ATTACHMENT i
Mitigation Agreement
Page 5
Utilities and Service Systems
20. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site
recycling. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show the exterior location for
collecting recycling from both the commercial users and the on-site residents to the
satisfaction of the garbage collection company.
21. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
22. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted
with the demolition and building permit applications for review and approval by the
Community Development Director. If asbestos is present, its removal must comply with
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the satisfaction of the Air
Pollution Control District.
Aesthetics
23. The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application
shall include a color and materials board with samples of the actual colors and
materials proposed for the buildings and/or color photographic excerpts from
manufacturers' cut sheets depicting the proposed roofing, windows and doors,
exterior walls, columns, exterior lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also
include a construction detail of the mechanical equipment proposed and its roof-
mounted installation; a construction detail of-Window and sill installation;a detail of the
proposed cornice and eave design; a detail of the proposed upper level columns and
the metal awnings on the east elevation of Building A; a detail of the overflow
scuppers for the decks; a detail of short-term bike racks; a detail of long term bicycle
parking in both the commercial area and the residential units; and any other design
detail which the Community Development Director deems necessary to adequately
evaluate the proposed project.
24. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties.
The maximum height of any parking lot lighting, including fixtures, standard and base,
shall not be higher than 15 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at
the finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles. Any
individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located above the first floor of the building
and shall direct light downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be subject to review and
approval by the Architectural Review Commission.
Cultural Resources
25. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work
within 150 feet of object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a
qualified archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the
1-80
ER 108-00 , (ATTACHMENT
Mitigation Agreement
Page 6
archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon
Director approval, implemented by the applicant.
If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above
mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or
modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures.
Please note that 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. This project will not be scheduled
for public review and hearing until this signed original is returned to .the
Community Development Department.
Ronald Whisenand Matt Quaglina Representative for:.
Acting Community Development Director Covey III
1-81
Amcmw 1
i��III I IIII I I IIIIII������Illllllllll I III I III
City Of SAn luis OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
- INITIAL STUDY ER 108-00
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(revised 4/11/01)
1. Project Title:
Roadhouse Mixed Use Project— ER, GP/R, ARC, U 108-00
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 41
---�.-
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 W '
rr �.
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7164
4. Project Location: Current development on project site
811 and 903 EI Capitan
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Covey III c/o Matt Quaglino
815 Fiero Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan. Designation: Services and Manufacturing and Medium-Density
Residential
7. Zoning: C-S and R-2 (Service-Commercial and Medium-Density Residential)
8. Description of the Project: The applicant proposes to rezone the site Service-
Commercial Mixed Use (C-S MU); merge the two existing lots; demolish the
existing structure; and construct 2 new buildings — one with two floors of
commercial space and one with one floor of commercial space and two floors of
apartments above.
1-82
O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
ATTACHMENT 1 4
9. Project Entitlements Requested: The project will require environmental revr6w;
architectural review of the buildings, site planning, and landscaping; a lot merger;
a general plan amendment and rezoning to change the general plan land use
map and the zoning map; and an administrative use permit for a proposed
reduction in the number of parking spaces required.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The site is roughly U-shaped, and
wraps around a lot developed with a discount carpet store. To the east and south
are residences. Various commercial uses line Broad Street in the vicinity. The
site is crossed by a creek along its southerly boundary.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement): Caltrans for construction of a sidewalk
on the Broad Street bridge on the projects Broad Street frontage.
2 1-83
ATTR 1
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 Water X Noise Mandatory Findings
of Significance
X Air Quality Public Services
X Transportation and X Utilities and Service
Circulation I Systems
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.
X The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to
the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish
and Game Code.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a 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 uPotentially Significant Impact"-or is "Potentially Significant Unless
3 1-84
� " � A17ACHMENT 1 �
Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 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.
4 1-85
ATp1T 1 4
December 27, 2000 (revised 4/11/01)
Signature Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager for Arnold Jonas, Community.Development Dir..
Printed Name
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..
5 1-86
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potcin.-dry Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 108-00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation ,1
Inco 4
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2 X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?.
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to N/A
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land X
uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an NIA
established community (including a low-income or X
minority community)?
General Plan Designation,Zoning,and Compatibility
The site consists of two lots-one designated for"Services and Manufacturing" and the other for"Medium-
Density Residential"on the General Plan Land Use Element(LUE) map. The applicant would like to develop the
site with a mix of commercial and residential uses and has requested approval of a general plan amendment
and rezoning to designate the entire site Services and Manufacturing with a Mixed Use zoning overlay. Approval
of the request would increase the residential development potential and enable some additional flexibility in site
planning. The Mixed Use ordinance requires that the rezoning specify the uses allowed to better ensure
compatibility. Compatibility will also be addressed as part of the architectural review process.
The applicant would like to mix the residential and commercial uses together on the site rather than segregate them
on two separate lots. The request for a general plan amendment and mixed use rezoning is the appropriate way to
achieve this objective. Mixed use development is encouraged by the zoning regulations(Chapter 17.55)and
general plan policies(e.g. Land Use Element policy 2.2.7). The creek corridor should be designated Open Space in
accordance with Open Space Element policies as described on page 27 of that document
Mitigation
The General Plan land use map designates creeks as open space. The proposed rezoning exhibit shall show the
areas within the creek corridor—between the top of creek bank and/or outer edge of riparian vegetation,whichever
is greater—as Open Space.
Environmental Plans and Policies
Project conformance with adopted City policies and regulations regarding development near creeks and
recommended mitigation are discussed below under"Geologic_Problems"and 'Biological Resources."
Project conformance with adopted policies of the Airport land Use Commission is discussed under"Transportation
and Circulation"and under"Noise" below.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING-Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 2
projections? X
b) Induce substantial. growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or X
major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
X
This is an infill site which the City's general plan and zoning regulations have designated as appropriate for
development. The project will not displace existing housing since there is none on site. Site development and
rezoning are not-likely to induce growth beyond what is already anticipated. As proposed, the project would
6 1-87
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poten...dy Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 108-00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
increase the potential for housing development on this site.
Conclusion: No impacts.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal,result in or ex ose eo le to otential im acts involving:
a) Fault rupture? 1,2, X
3,4,
5;6,
20
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions. X
from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? X
h) Expansive soils? X
i) . Unique geologic or physical features?
Seismic
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 Safety Element of the General Plan as being in the"R", Recent
Alluvium, zone which often has a high liquefaction risk.
A soils engineering report and creek bank evaluation was prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc for this project. It is
attached without Appendix A—the soil borings log. The full report is incorporated herein by reference and
available for review in the Community Development Department. Soil borings encountered a variety of soil
types: sandy clay, clay with sand and some gravel, and clay and silt lenses. Bedrock was encountered at
depths of 14.5 to 20.5 feet. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 10 to 12.5 feet.
The report concludes that the potential for liquefaction is low. The primary geotechnical concerns are the
presence of expansive surface soils and the potential for differential settlement if foundations span different soil
types. Over-excavation to a minimum depth of 12 inches and soil compaction are recommended beneath
building footings and pavement areas.
Creek Erosion
The soter{y southwesterly property line is crossed by a tributary to Acacia Creek, sometimes referred to as,
Islay Creek, which is in tum a tributary to the East Fork of the San Luis Creek. The creek setback ordinance.
and s
e
creek the cresetback classes map stipulate a 3
_ _ 5-foot setback for this stretch of creek.
A smaller tributary creek crosses the southeasterly comer of the site. The creek setback ordinance and creek
setback classes map indicate a 20-foot setback for this creek. The creek bottom of this smaller tributary is
roughly 8 to 10 feet below the top of bank at the southeast comer of the site and the creek bank is fairly steep
in this location. A perimeter fence at the edge of an existing parking area is in places less than two feet from
the top of bank. Parts of the fence and some of the fence supports appear to have been undermined by
ongoing erosion.
Policy S1.1 in the Safety Element of the General Plan states that development close to creeks shall be
designed to avoid damage due to future creek bank erosion. Typically this is accomplished by setting
development Reiast.20 fee back from the top of creek bank, consistent with setback standards in the zoning
regulations. Creek bank erosion is evident at the south east comer of the site. Original project plans show a
comer of Building B as close as 11(+/-)feet from the top of bank and parking lot construction within 2 feet of
1-88
Issues and Supporting Information-Sources Sources Potem..-y Less Than Less Than No
Significant SiQNII Ncail 4npact
ER 108-00 issues N . �^^VV!!11 t
Mitigation
Incorporated
the top of a very steep, actively eroding creek bank (shown below). Under this scenario, a winter storm could
end up washing a portion of the parking lot into the creek and potentially cause a flooding problem, A revised
site plan, submitted March 23, 2001, locates building footprints and parking outside e of creek setbacks.
KI •' h1Y '
�t � ` `l5•Y.
tl
c •
r
Y ti
h.
n �i •---......111...
f
•
The zoning regulations do allow for replacement structures to occupy the same footprint as an existing
structure which encroaches into the required setback, providing no additional floor area is added to the
encroaching part of the structure. The proposed project would add floor area and, therefore, is not entitled to a
setback exception under the zoning regulations.
As originally proposed, with a building and parking lot very close to the top of an eroding creek bank, the project
would likely require some form of creek bank stabilization in the very near future. The issue of creek the
must be resolved as part of project review.
The GeoSolutions report includes an evaluation of the creek bank. It states that active erosion is occurring
within the creek bank at the southeast side of the site (p.9). The report recommends that top of bank activity be
limited, especially at the southeast corner of the site, and that disturbance of the bluff top, either by natural or
manmade causes, should be severely restricted (p.10).
A separate report addresses slope stability based on the soil type encountered in the sample borings. In a
telephone conversation on January 11, 2001, John Kammer, who prepared the report, explained that slope
stability and erosion are two separate issues. Based on the soil characteristics, the slopes are relatively stable.
Erosion of the creek banks is more directly related to storm events. The smaller the creek and the steeper the
banks, the more susceptible it to erosion even under normal storm conditions. At the southeast comer of the
site, there is asphalt paving at the very top of bank which has been undercut by water currents in the past.
Pieces of asphalt are located below in the streambed. Debris in tree limbs near the top of bank indicates water
levels have over topped the creek bank in certain areas in the past.
Mitigation
The project shall be designed so that building footprints and parking areas are setback a minimum of 20 feet
from the top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, for the small unnamed tributary.
---.
creek that crosses the southeast comer of the site, and.35 feet from the top_of bank or dg of riparian
8 1-89
Issues and Supporting Information -Sources Sources Poten,, i, Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 108-00 Issues With Impact 4
Mit
Inco orazed
vegetation, whichever is greater, for the segment of the tributary of Acacia Creek which flows generally parallel
to and on the easterly side of Broad Street and crosses the southwest corner of the site, consistent with the
creek setback ordinance, and_as_shown of the Creek Setback_Classes Map. Any request for a lesser setback
Pl
shall be considered by the anning Commission and City Council together with the application for rezoning.
Site grading and improvements shall be designed to direct water away from the top of bank and shall be
consistent with the recommendations in the soils engineering report and slope stability evaluation prepared by
GeoSolutions.
Also see mitigation under Biological Resources.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,or the 2,3 X
rate and amount of surface runoff? 5,6
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or_other alteration of
surface water quality(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen X
or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? X
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? X
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of X
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? X
Drainage and Surface Water
Site development will not significantly change the amount of surface runoff since most of the site is currently
covered with pavement and a building. Due to existing topography, the site generally drains across the surface
to the creek. Proposed plans would redirect a portion of site drainage to a storm drain at the comer of Broad
and EI Capitan. The storm drain would then convey drainage into the creek via an outfall located near the
southwest corner of the project site. Project plans do not show how roof drainage will be directed.
Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 encourages the use of porous paving and ample landscaped areas to facilitate
rainwater percolation, reduce surface runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. To be consistent with this policy,
the project should comply with the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use porous paving or
decomposed granite for any patio and walkway areas in the creek setback.
Any development involving extensive grading, expansive parking areas, or the servicing of vehicles may result in
petroleum-contaminated drainage polluting nearby surface waters. Discharge of any pollutants (e.g. sediment as
a result of grading, 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 into nearby surface waters, the following mitigation is
recommended:
9 1-90
Issues and Supporting Informatioii-D'ources Sources Potem_.4, Less Than LcssThin No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 108-00 Issues with 1 4
Mitiga
Inco _
Floodina
A letter from Matt Wheeler at John Wallace and Associates, attached and herein incorporated by reference,
indicates that the 100-year flood elevation at general plan build-out is 160.6 feet. The City's Flood Damage and
Prevention Regulations require finish floor elevations to be located at minimum of one foot above projected 100-
year flood elevations. Preliminary development plans show a finish floor elevation of 161.3. Plans will need to be
revised to meet the required minimum of 161.6 feet. The hydrologic analysis in the same letter indicates the
project will not have any significant adverse impact on downstream properties as a result of storm water runoff.
Public Works staff have reviewed the analysis and concur with its findings.
Mitigation
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 through the storm water system. The
separators must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal 6y__the__property owner to the
_
satisfaction_of the City Engineer.
To be consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 regarding porous paving, the project shall comply with the
parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use porous paving or decomposed granite for any'patio
and walkway areas in the creek setback.
Plans submitted for architectural review shall include a detail showing how and where roof drainage will be.
conveyed in a non-erosive manner.
Plans submitted for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission must clearly demonstrate how the new
buildings will meet the minimum requirements of the City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations, and how
any necessary revisions, such as a change in finish floor elevation, to the preliminary plans submitted for the
rezoningand environmental review application will affect ADA requirements and building height.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation (Compliance with APCD 7,8 X
Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any
change in climate? X
d Create objectionable odors? X
The letter from the Air Pollution Control District(attached) indicates that the project is not likely to exceed the
District's emissions thresholds of significance for construction or operation. However, to address cumulative air
quality impacts, the following mitigation is recommended.
Mitigation
The project shall include to the satisfaction of the APCD and the Community Development Director:
1. Short-and long-term (lockers) bicycle parking for both the commercial and residential uses;
2. A pedestrian connection to Broad Street near the apartments (as shown on 6.28.00 plans);
3. Eating facilities and outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch
hour;
4. Extensive shade tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from
automobiles;
5. Sodium lights in the parking lot;
6. Dual-glazed windows;
7. Wall and ceiling insulation to exceed Title 24 requirements; and
8. Energy efficient appliances, furnaces, and wall heaters.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
10 1-91
Issues and Supporting Informati(,. .,ources Sources Potei J Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues With Impact
ER 108-00 1
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 1,2, X
17
b) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g. farm X
equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g.'bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts(e.g. compatibility with
San Luis Obispo Co.Ai ort)_ X
Traffic
A traffic study was prepared for this project by Penfield and Smith, which is attached and herein incorporated by
reference. It concludes that no mitigation is necessary beyond meeting the City's requirement for payment of traffic
impact fees.The Public Works Transportation Division reviewed the traffic study and concurred with the report
conclusions. Caltrans also reviewed the project and the traffic report and had no concerns(telephone conversation
with Larry Newland on 9/14/00).
Hazards
Frontage improvements and right-of-way dedication will be required to ensure safe circulation for pedestrians and
bicyclists. Comments from the Public Works Engineering and Transportation Divisions indicate the need for a
sidewalk on the road bridge that crosses the creek along the Broad Street frontage of the project site.The design of
the sidewalk will be subject to review and approval by Cal Trans since this portion of Broad Street is a State
highway. Frontage improvements will also be necessary along EI Capitan and at the comer of EI Capitan and
Broad Street. A dedication of 3 feet along the EI Capitan frontage will be necessary to achieve the full 56 feet of
right-of-way for this street and alignment with existing curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. This will affect on-
site.setbacks to the proposed parking areas along EI Capitan.
Mitigation
The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property along EI Capitan for public
street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of way(additional parkway behind sidewalk) and that portion of
the northwesterly comer of the property at the corner of EI Capitan & Broad (State Hwy. 227) necessary to
accommodate a new City standard 9.1 m (30 ft) radius curb return and handicap ramp, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works and Caltrans.
The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public street frontages, consisting of a 6'
wide integral sidewalk, curb&gutter, driveway ramps, a handicap ramp at.the corner, streetlights, a sidewalk
incorporated into the Caltrans bridge(Broad St.) and street pavement(between existing structural pavement and
new frontage improvements), to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans(Broad St.).
Plans submitted to the Architectural Review Commission shall clearly show to scale the required right-of-way
dedication and frontage improvements relative to the proposed on-site improvements.
11 1-92
' v
Issues and Supporting Informati. oources Sources Pot. "Significant
ss Than No
Significant gnificant Impact
ER 108-00 Issuespal.
co orated
CJn
66
qkJ
p 'ZD c 0 0 G
I
Parking Capacity
Preliminary plans calculate the parking requirement at one space per 300 square feet for commercial uses and
1.5 spaces per dwelling plus one guest parking space for each 5 dwellings—for a total of 97 spaces. Plans show
71 parking spaces. The applicant originally requested a 20% mixed-use parking reduction and an additional 10%
reduction for providing more bicycle spaces than otherwise required. Based on the ultimate mix of commercial
uses, the required parking could be more or less than one per 300 square feet. However, using the one per 300
square foot calculation is reasonable in this case since it represents a fair average of potential parking demand
based on the applicants proposed list of allowable uses.
Zoning regulations enable several methods for reducing the parking requirement subject to approval of an
administrative use permit. The applicant must apply and receive approval for either a shared (10%)and/or a
mixed use (up to 20%) reduction in required parking. The use of additional bicycle parking will be considered as
part of that review. Comments from the Public Works Transportation Division indicate that the proposed
number of bicycle parking spaces (60) is excessive for this project.
Opportunities for overflow on-street parking is very limited in this case. There may be room for two car spaces
along the EI Capitan frontage. No parking is allowed along the Broad Street frontage. Public transit service to
this location is also limited. The closest bus stop is across Broad Street at Fiero Lane, approximately 750 feet
away. Under-parking the project could negatively impact the residential neighborhood on EI Capitan. For this
reason, in addition to concerns that the proposed bike parking will not offset demand for vehicle spaces, a lesser
parking reduction than the one being requested may be more appropriate.
Consistent with the Circulation Element policies 3.1 and 3.4, the project should provide secure bicycle storage
and shower facilities to encourage bicycle transportation.
NOTE: In conversations with staff after the preparation of this initial study, the applicant determined that a
combination of shared-use and mixed-use parking reductions would be more reasonable.
Mitigation
The applicant shall apply for a use permit for the proposed parking reduction. Action on the request shall take
12 2-93
Issues and Supporting Informatii._jources Sources Potei. .y Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 108-00 Issues With Impact
jk
AIM
1
into account available public transit, available on-street parking, the potential impact on the EI Capitan residential
neighborhood, the location and design details for long term bicycle parking, and the likelihood for additional
bicycle parking to offset demand for vehicle spaces..
Plans submitted for architectural review shall show long term bicycle parking for both the commercial area and
the apartments that is adequately sized to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The long-term bicycle
parking for the commercial uses shall be installed as part of the shell building construction together with
common shower, toilet, and clothes locker facilities.
Compatibility with Airport Operations
The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) reviewed this project on August 6, 2000. The ALUC notice of action
is attached and recommends the following mitigation to avoid conflict with airport operations.
-Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations consistent with the City Noise
Element and Noise Ordinance. In addition, residential units shall have a maximum of 40 decibels in the
sleeping areas.
-The applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County prior to issuance of building permits.
-Project occupants and land uses shall comply with the land use compatibility matrix of the San Luis Obispo
Airport Land Use Plan fpfLL operties In the 2
6
ne_5. Conditionally compatible uses shall occupy no more than
60%of the project floor area.
-All exterior lighting shall be shielded down lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with airport operations.
Search lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited.
-Lease and rental agreements shall disclose that the property is in an airport flight traffic zone and that noise
impacts may occur as a result of this. Such disclosure statement shall be submitted to the Airport Manager
for review and approval prior to occupancy.
-Radio transmissions which may interfere with airport operations shall be prohibited.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 1,2,
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or 10,1 X
birds)? 1,
22
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, X
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat(e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? I X
baa*. Preliminary plans show building footprints within the required creek setbacks.Plans do not clearly show
the edge of riparian vegetation. A 20-foot setback is required for the small tributary at the southeast side of the'
site. The setback for the creek_segment along the southwesterncornerof the site has a_35-foot setback.
The creek map in the Open Space Element designates this creek as a perennial creek with a degraded
corridor and high encroachment, more difficult to restore.
A stated goal in the Open Space Element is to restore degraded creeks to provide high quality habitat,
augment aesthetic resources, and reverse the historical trend of creek channelization and modification.
Zoning regulations do not specifically prohibit grading within the creek setback. Open Space Element polices
state that development, including grading, should be located outside a creek setback area except when it is
determined that the location is necessary for certain infrastructure subject to a finding that the project has
minimized environmental impacts through project design.
1-94
Issues and Supporting Infomlatit Jources Souices Pote Less Than Less Than No
SignificaSignificant Imnt Significant pact
ER 108-00 Issues With Impact
Mitigazion
Inco orated
The following general plan land use element(LUE) policies apply to this project:
LUE 6.4 Creeks,Wetlands,and Flooding Policies San Luis Obispo wants to avoid injury or substantial property
losses from flooding, while keeping or improving the creeks' natural character, scenic appearance, recreational
value, and fish and wildlife habitat.
LUE 6.4.6 Creek Setbacks The following items should be no closer to the wetland or creek than the setback line:
buildings, streets, driveways, parking lots, above-ground utilities, and outdoor commercial storage or work areas.
LUE 6.5.1 Previously Developed Areas To limit the potential for increased flood damage in previously developed
areas, the City will ensure that infill and replacement projects do not contribute floating debris to flood waters and
require new infill buildings to.have greater setbacks than their older neighbors,when necessary.
LUE 6.5.5 Restoration at Development Sites The City will require protection and restoration of wetlands and
creek channels for fish and wildlife habitat within development sites.
LUE Goal 3. The City should protect, sustain, and where it has been degraded, enhance wildlife habitat...along
creeks...so that diverse, native plants, fish, and animals can continue to live within the area.
A Biological Study was prepared for this project by Tenera Environmental Services and is attached to this
report. It provides a general characterization of the riparian habitat and species potentially accommodated by
the habitat. The report recommends mitigation to minimize impacts to the habitat and animal species that
depend on it.
The report notes that,"neither the season nor the weather were optimal"for surveying the full range of fauna
and flora that may be present on site. Nevertheless, it does identify ways in which the project.could adversely,
impact the creek habitat-and recommends mitigation (p. 16, 17, and 18). Providing the project meets creek
setbacks as required by the zoning ordinance and includes restoration of degraded creek areas, in addition to
the mitigation recommended_by the report, nosignificant_adverse impacts,are anticipated.
Mitigation
The applicant shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be recorded with the County
Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to issuance
of any building or grading permit. The agreement shall include the following provisions:
a) Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space area to the:satisfaction of the
City's Natural Resources Manager.
b) Grant to the City the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the property owner fails to perform,
and to assess the property owner for expenses incurred, and the right of the City to inspect the site to assure
conditions of the agreement and project approval are being met.
c) The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the property owner in accordance with the creek
preservation and maintenance agreement as approved by the City.
d) Erosion control and revegetation to restore the health of the riparian area consistent with Land Use
Element policies.
e) Exterior project lighting at the rear of buildings along the creek shall be limited to bollard lighting along the
proposed path at the top of bank to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resource Manager and the
Community Development Director.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
14 1-95
Issues and Supporting Inforrnatib.. sources Sources Potei. 9 Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 108-00 Issues with Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 2,8 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner? X
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents X
of the State?
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
New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:
Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use;
• Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements;
• Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting;
• Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural ventilation;
• Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and
• Dual glazed windows.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document
why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and
make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features.
Also see mitigation recommended under Air Quality,
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous 8
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, X
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards? X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass
or trees? X
Conclusion: Less than significant. Demolition will require an asbestos survey and clearance from the APCD for
the method of removal if asbestos is present. Otherwise, the project is not anticipated to result in any health
hazard.
10. NOISE. Would the propwal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? 2, X
13,
14
b) Exposure of people to"unacceptable" noise levels as
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise X
Element?
15 1-96
Issues and Supporting Informatit.—sources Sources rota. ..y Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 108-00 Issues With Impact
i
A noise study was prepared for the project by Krause Engineering Services which concludes that, with certain
mitigation, indoor and outdoor exposure to noise—primarily from traffic along Highway 227—can be reduced to
less than significant levels. The study is attached and herein incorporated by reference. The project will need to
incorporate all recommended mitigation or equivalent measures as described in the City's Noise Guidebook.
Mitigation
The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in the noise study prepared for this
project by Krause Engineering Services, date September 21, 2000.
To comply with the City's Noise Element and conditions of approval by the Airport Land Use Commission:
1. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 40 decibels.
2. Other interior areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 45 decibels.
3. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 60 decibels.
4. Commonresidential/commercial outdoor areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of
65 decibels.
To monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures, sound level readings must be taken at the completion of
construction and prior to occupancy.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e Other governmental services? X
Conclusion: This is essentially an infill project that can be accommodated by existing public services.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the followin utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 15, X
21
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? X
Local or regional water supplies? X
Utilities
This is essentially an infill project that can be accommodated by existing utilities and service systems. It is
subject to water allocation requirements and water and wastewater impact fees. A new sewer lateral must be
installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Solid Waste
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management.Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians
dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat
to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018.
The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989
levels) by 2000. New recycling facilities, currently being installed at the landfill, should help the city reach this
goal. To 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
16 1-97
Issues and Supporting Informatic..__-iources Sources eote. Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
7 ..
ER 108-00 Issues withh AA 4
Mit
Inco r e --`
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.
Recycling Demolition and Construction Materials
Comments received from the Utilities Department note that demolition of the existing facilities warrants the need
for a recycling plan for disposal of the demolition debris. The plan should demonstrate how the majority of the
tonnage(typically concrete and asphalt)will be recycled.
Water_Usage
The Utilities Conservation Coordinator has reviewed project plans and the proposed list of allowed uses for the
site. He estimates that the project will use roughly 4.3.acre feet of water,.per_year_:Of that amount .83 acre feet
would be needed for landscaping:
Mitigation
The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. Plans submitted for
architectural review shall show the exterior location for collecting recycling from both the commercial users and
the on-site residents to the satisfaction of the the garbage collection company.
A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted with the demolition and
buildinq permit applications for review and approval by the Community Development Director.
13.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? • 2,9 X
14
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?. X
c) Create light or glare? _ _ X
Scenic Views
The project site is located along Broad Street which is designated a road of high or moderate scenic value in the
Circulation Element of the General Plan. Policy 14.3 states that development along scenic roadways should not
block views or detract from the quality of views. The applicant has submitted a photo of the site from the road
which superimposes the proposed Building A onto the existing view. Views of the Santa Lucia hills are now
blocked by trees, primarily Eucalyptus. The photo simulation, which is attached and herein incorporated by
reference, indicates that the project will not significantly alter existing views. Site visits by City staff indicate that,
when traveling by the site toward town on Broad Street, some views of the hills to the northeast will be blocked
by the Building A. Similarviews will remain open at EI Capitan.
Conclusion: Les than significant. To the east and south views of distant hills are now blocked by vegetation.
Views of the hills are available to the northeast. Building A will obscure some of the views to the northeast, but
overall the project will not significantly alter available views. A photo of views to the northeast is attached.
Aesthetics
New commercial buildings are subject to architectural review. Plans submitted for architectural review must
include sufficient details in order for the Architectural Review Commission to adequately evaluate the proposed
project.
Mitigation
17 1-98
Issues and Supporting Inforrnatit.. -iourees Sources rote, ,y Less Than Less ratan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 108-00 Issues with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c
The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application shall include a color and
materials board with samples of the actual colors and materials proposed for the buildings and/or color
photographic excerpts from manufacturers' cut sheets depicting the proposed roofing,windows and doors,
exterior walls, columns, exterior lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also include a construction detail of
the mechanical equipment proposed and its roof-mounted installation; a construction detail of window and sill
installation; a detail of the proposed cornice and eave design; a detail of the proposed upper level columns and
the metal awnings on the east elevation of Building A; a detail of the overflow scuppers for the decks; a detail of
short-term bike racks; a detail of long term bicycle parking in both the commercial area and the residential units;
and any other design detail which the Community Development Director deems necessary to adequately
evaluate the proposed project.
Lighting
The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the proposed project and recommended approval subject to
several conditions, one of which addresses the need for on-site lighting to be compatible with airport operations.
Standard mitigation is also recommended to minimize light pollution to the night sky.
Mitigation
All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with aircraft flights or
aircraft operations. Search lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited.
Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of any
parking lot lighting, including fixtures, standard and.base, shall not be higher than 15 feet above the finished
grade. Lighting levels measured at the finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-
candles. Any individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located above the first floor of the building and shall
direct light downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review
Commission.
14.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the ro osal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
16 _ X
18
19
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical resources? X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would X
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
im act.area? X
18 1-99
Issues and Supporting Informatit _.;ounces sources rote., , Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 108-00 Issues with Impact
M� ' 1 4
Archaeology
A cultural resource survey was prepared for this project by Bertrando and Bertrando, incorporated herein by
reference and available for review at the Community Development Department. The field survey for
archaeological remains found no evidence of.prehistoric use of the project area. In the event any resources are
encountered during construction, the following mitigation is recommended:
Mitigation
If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within 150 feet of object(s)shall
cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures
recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director
approval, implemented by the applicant.
Historical Resources
On November 9, 2000, the City Council adopted a resolution (attached)finding the existing structure on site not
to be historically significant at the local level. A report prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning & preservation,
Inc. analyzed the architectural and historic character of the building and concluded that it is not significant in
either case. That report is herein incorporated by reference and available for review at.the Community
Development Department. The.Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed that report together with the one
prepared by Bertrando and Bertrando and concluded that the structure was not significant at the National or
State level but was significant at a local level. An appeal of that determination by the applicant to the City
Council was upheld on November 9, 2000.
Conclusion: Less than significant
15. RECREATION: Would.the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities? X
b Affect existing recreational opportunities7. X
Not applicable.
19 1-100
Issues and Supporting Information. _ounces Sources Poten. Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 108-00 Issues With Impact
1
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or X
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
With mitigation as recommended, the construction and occupancy of the buildings proposed for this site would have
no significant adverse environmental impacts on wildlife or cultural resources.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to
the disadvantage of long-term, environmental gmals? X
Short-and long-term environmental goals are the same.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively X
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of the past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects
Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all the issue areas checked in
the table on page 3.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X
directly or indirectly?
The project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly.
20 1-101
Issues and Supporting Informatit...-.iources Sourrices Pote. .,y Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 108-00 Issues With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
ATTACHMENT 1 -�
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of San Luis-Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 2000.
2. City Of San Luis Obispo General Plan
3. ' Soils En ineerin_ Report prdared-byGeoSolutions: -ro ect#SLO1777-1
4. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-
Pholo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990.
5. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 060310 0005 C dated July 7, 1981.
6. ' Letter from Matt Wheeler at John Wallace and Associates describing the flood elevations and
h drolo is runoff for the project, dated October 4, 2000
7. APCD's"CEQA Air Quality Handbook", August 1995.
8. ' Letter from APCD dated 11/17/00.
9. Architectural Review in San Luis Obispo, June 1983.
10. * Biological Study prepared by Tenera Environmental Services, E2000-109.1.
11. City of San Luis Obispo Informational Maio Atlas.
12. San Luis Obispo AirportLand Use Plan, 1979
13. ' Noise Study prepared by Krause Engineering Services, dated September 21, 2000
14. " Airport Land Use Commission Notice of Action on hearing date August 16, 2000
15. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence&Associates, July
1994.
16. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995
17. ' Traffic Study prepared by Penfield and Smith for thisproject: W.O. 13,812.01
18. Cultural Resource Survey re ared by Bertrando and Bertrando, Proect.#40-041008
19. Cultural Resource Evaluation prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning, &Preservation for 811 EI
Ca itin, dated September 7,.2000
20.
Slope stability report prepared by GeoSolutions, dated January 10, 2001
21. Memo from Ron Munds regarding estimated water usage; 3/13/01;
ATTACHED:
Vicinity map
Rezoning exhibit
Reduced project plans
Proposed list of uses
Photos of the site
Excerpts from studies prepared for the project as marked with an asterisk(") in the Source Reference Table
Comments from other City departments and other agencies
Council resolution determining the structure on site not to be historically significant
21 1-102
ER 108-00 811 and 903 EI Capital,__
ATTACHW 1 4
19. MITIGATION
Land Use
1. The General Plan land use map designates creeks as open space. The proposed rezoning exhibit shall show the
areas within the creek corridor—between the top of creek bank and/or outer edge of riparian vegetation,whichever is
greater—as Open Space.
Monitoring Program: Review and action on the proposed rezoning.
Geology
2. The ppgjeGt shall be designed so that building f4gOtpFiRtS and PaFking aFeas aFe setbaGk a FRiROMI'M Rf 2 feet
The project shall be designed so that building footprints and parking areas are setback a
minimum of 20 feet from the top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater; forthe-
small unnamed tributary creek that.crosses the southeast comer of the.site, and 35 feet from the top of bank or
edge of riparian vegetation, whicheveris greater, for the segment of the tributary of Acacia Creek which flows
generally,paralleI to and on the easterly side of Broad Street and crosses the southwest comer of the site,
consistent with the creek setback ordinance, :and as shown of the Creek Setback Classes-Map. Any request
for a lesser setback shall be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council together with the
application for rezoning.
3. Site grading and improvements shall be designed to direct water away from the top of bank and shall be
consistent with the recommendations in the soils engineering report and slope stability evaluation prepared by
GeoSolutions.
Monitoring Program: Creek setback exceptions require review and approval of a use permit. The approved creek
setback shall be staked with rigid fencing prior to thestart of site grading or demolition. Grading and building plans
will be reviewed for compliance with the soils engineering report and slope stability evaluation prior to issuance of
a permit.
Water
4. 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 through the storm water system. The
separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal by th--- ---erty.owrier to the;
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5. To be consistent with Land Use Element,policy 6.4.7 regarding porous paving, the project.shall comply with
the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use porous paving or decomposed granite for any patio
and walkway areas in the creek setback.
6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include a detail showing how and where roof drainage will be
conveyed in a non-erosive manner.
7. Plans submitted for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission must clearly demonstrate how the
new buildings will meet the minimum requirements of the City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations, and
how any necessary revisions, such as a change in finish floor elevation, to the preliminary plans submitted for the
rezoning and environmental review application will affect ADA requirements and building height.
Monitoring Program:Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy..
Air Quality
8. The project shall include to the satisfaction of the APCD and the Community Development Director:
22 1-103
ER 108-00 81 land 903 EI CapitL.- ._._...._.���
a. Short-and long-term (lockers) bicycle parking for both the commercial and residential uses;
b. A pedestrian connection to Broad Street near the apartments (as shown on 6.28.00 plans);
c. Eating facilities and outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the
lunch hour,
d. Extensive shade tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from
automobiles;
e. Sodium lights in the parking lot;
f. Dual-glazed windows;
g. Wall and ceiling insulation to exceed Title 24 requirements; and
h. Energy efficient appliances, furnaces, and wall heaters.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings,the project architect shall
document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review
this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving
features.
Biological Resources
9. The applicant shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be recorded with the
County Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to
issuance of any building or grading permit. The agreement shall include the following provisions:
a) Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space area to the satisfaction
of the City's Natural Resources Manager.
b) Grant to the City the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the property owner fails to
perform, and to assess the property owner for expenses incurred, and the right of the City to inspect
the site to assure conditions of the agreement and project approval are being met.
c) The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the property owner in accordance with the
creek preservation and maintenance agreement as approved by the City.
d) Erosion control and revegetation to restore the health of the riparian area consistent with Land
Use Element policies.
10. Exterior project lighting at the rear of buildings along the creek shall be limited to bollard-lighting along the
proposed path at the top of bank to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community
Development Director.
Ener
11. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use;
• Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements;
• Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting;
• Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural ventilation;
• Lighting controls(occupancy and motion sensors); and
• Dual glazed windows.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall
document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this
document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features.
Monitoring Program:Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy.
Traffic and Circulation
12. The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property along EI Capitan for
public street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of way(additional parkway behind sidewalk) and that
portion of the northwesterly comer of the property at the comer of EI Capitan &Broad (State Hwy. 227) necessary
23 1-104
ER 108-00 81 land 903 EI Capitar�
to accommodate a new City standard 9.1 m (30 ft) radius curb return and handicap ramp, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works and Caltrans.
13. The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public street frontages, consisting of
a 6'wide integral sidewalk, curb&gutter, driveway ramps, a handicap ramp at the corner, streetlights, a
sidewalk incorporated into the Caltrans bridge (Broad St.) and street pavement(between existing structural
pavement and new frontage improvements), to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans
(Broad St).
14. Plans submitted to the Architectural Review Commission shall clearly show to scale the required right-0f-way
dedication and frontage improvements relative to the proposed on-site improvements.
15. The applicant shall apply for a use permit for the proposed parking reduction. Action on the request shall
take into account available public transit, available on-street parking, the potential impact on the EI Capitan
residential neighborhood, the location and design details for long term bicycle parking and related amenities,
other amenities to encourage walking and bicycling to the site, and the likelihood for additional bicycle parking to
offset demand for vehicle spaces.
16. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show long term bicycle parking for both the commercial area
and the apartments that is adequately sized to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The long-term
bicycle parking for the commercial uses shall be installed as part of the shell building construction together with
common shower, toilet, and clothes locker facilities.
17. To avoid interference with Airport operations:
a. The applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County prior to issuance of building permits.
b. Project occupants and land uses shall comply with the land use compatibility matrix of the.San Luis
Obispo Airport Land Use Plan for properties in the Zone 5. Conditionally compatible uses (including
dwellings) shall occupy no more than 60%of the project floor area.
c. Lease and rental agreements shall disclose that the property is in an airport flight traffic zone and
that noise impacts may occur as a result of this. Such disclosure statement shall be submitted to the
Airport Manager for review and approval prior to occupancy.
d. Radio transmissions which may interfere with airport operations shall be prohibited.
e. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations consistent with the City
Noise Element and Noise Ordinance and the ALUC's recommended conditions of approval.
f. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with airport
operations. Search lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited.
Monitoring Program:Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy.
Noise
18. To comply with the City's.Noise Element and conditions of approval recommended by the Airport Land Use
Commission:
a. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 40 decibels.
b. Other interior areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 45 decibels.
c. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 60
decibels.
d. Common residential1commercial outdoor areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise
exposure of 65 decibels.
19. The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in the noise study prepared for
this project by Krause Engineering Services, date September 21, 2000, and shall include any additional
measures necessary to meet requirements established by the Airport Land Use Commission.
Monitoring Program: To monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures, the applicant shall arrange for a
qualified noise consultant to take interior and exterior sound level readings at the completion of construction and
24 1-105
i
ER 108-00 81 land 903 EI Capitan_ AUKHMM I "t
prior to occupancy. The number and location of readings shall be to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. If readings do not meet specified objectives, a qualified noise consultant shall identify
additional measures necessary to meet the objectives. Such measures shall be incorporated into the project prior
to release of occupancy.
Utilities and Service Systems
20. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. Plans submitted for
architectural review shall show the exterior location for collecting recycling from both the commercial users and
the on-site residents to the satisfaction of the garbage collection company.
21. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
22. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted with the demolition and
building permit applications for review and approval by the Community Development Director. If asbestos is
present, its removal must comply with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the
satisfaction of the Air Pollution Control District.
Monitoring Program:Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy.
Aesthetics
23. The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application shall include a color and
materials board with samples of the actual colors and materials proposed for the buildings and/or color
photographic excerpts from manufacturers' cut.sheets depicting the proposed roofing, windows and doors,
exterior walls, columns, exterior lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also include a construction detail of
the mechanical equipment proposed and its roof-mounted installation; a construction detail of window and sill
installation; a detail of the proposed cornice and eave design; a detail of the proposed upper level columns and
the metal awnings on the east elevation of Building A;a detail of the overflow scuppers for the decks; a detail of
short-term bike racks; a detail of long term bicycle parking in both the commercial area and the residential units;
and any other design detail which the Community Development Director deems necessary to adequately
evaluate the proposed project.
24. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of
any parking lot lighting, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 15 feet above the finished
grade. Lighting levels measured at the finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles.
Any individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located above the first floor of the building and shall direct light
downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be-subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission.
Monitoring Program:Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy. The applicant
shall submit a photometric diagram of parking lot lighting for review and approval as part of the building permit
application.
Cultural Resources
25. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within 150 feet of object(s)shall
cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist Any additional mitigation measures
recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director; and upon Director
approval, implemented by the applicant.
Monitoring Program: A qualified archaeologist shall survey the site once demolition and initial site grading are
completed. Prior to foundation inspection, the archaeologist shall submit a summary report of the survey.
25 1-106
C ATTACHMENT 1 5
MEMORANDUM D"��ies
aty of San Luis Obispo
To: Whitney Mcilvaine
From: Ron Munds
Date: March 13,2001
Subject: Water Use Estimation for the Roadhouse, 811 El Capitan Way
The following is the water use estimation for the above referenced project:
• Service Commercial- 21,127 sq. ft. @ 0.06 acre feet/1000 sq. ft. 1.92 acre feet/year
• Multi-family Residential- 16 units @ 0.12 acre feet/unit 1.28 acre feet/year
• Landscape- 17,120 sq. ft. (calculated using TTRC software) .83 acre feet/year
TOTAL 4.03 acre feet/year
The above estimation does not into account the redesign of the project to increase the setback
from the creek. If you have any questions, please call me at extension 258.
1-107
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ay ITEM #
Cathy Bezek
866 El Capitan Way -- .
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
544-3581
1_C;;CbUNCIL 2-nD DIR
April 16, 2001 9-CAO ❑ FIN DIR
I0-ACA0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF
EIATTOANEY ❑ PW DIR
To: San Luis Obispo City Council M et'ERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS ❑ REC DIR
❑ UTIL DIR
Re: Public Hearing on April 24, 2001 _ ❑ HR DIR
811 El Capitan, San Luis Obispo
GP/R/U/E 109-00
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to express my disapproval regarding the above referenced development. El
Capitan is a very small street with barely enough parking for the people who live here.
Plus, there is a Morin's Automotive on the comer of Broad and El Capitan and their
employees and customer's cars are parked on El Capitan daily. The Discount Carpet store
also parks on El Capitan.
The proposal for 81181 Capitan is too large considering the parking situation and the
size of the subject property. There is already too much traffic on this small street and we
do not need a high-density building causing more parking and traffic problems. We do
not have the room anymore. There are six more houses currently being built on this
street, which will totally max out the street for parking. This proposed project is a mixed
commercial and residential building and will have parking needs 24 hours a day!
Please do not approve this project as planned. I would prefer to see a commercial-use
only building with adequate parking planned for it. There is not enough room or parking
for both uses in this area.
Thank you,
Cathy Bezek
RECEIVED
APP 17 1001
SLO CITY COUNCIL
Richard Schmidt V 544-4247 T31i� 1 2A M 1/1 r
RICHARD SCHMIDT - --
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
e-mail: rwhmidt@calpoly.edu
April 23, 2001 VIA FAX
�UNCIL D DIR
To the City Council �0 [3 FIN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF
AyrORNEY ❑ PW DIR
Re: Item 1, "Roadhouse" project LERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ _DEPT HEAD$ ❑ REC DIR
I am appalled at this project for two reasons: 110147G ❑ LITIL DIR
❑ HR DIR
1. Redesignation of Residential Land to Commercial. With ait -wide shortage of
housing, especially affordable housing, it amazes me that the city would consider
redesignating any medium-density property for commercial use. There is already a glut
of commercial land in this city. We do not need any more. We do, however, need every
square inch of residential land we can muster.
Please do not approve this redesignation of residential land for commercial use.
2. Further Perversion of the City's Mixed Use Ordinance. As the author of this city's
mixed use zoning ordinance, I find it incredible how staff has perverted the intent of that
ordinance. Our intent in drafting and approving this ordinance was to allow residential
uses in commercial zones where they were not previously permitted, Qi to designate
certain commercial zones (i.e., retail areas) for upper story residential uses when
developed or redeveloped, thereby doubling/mixing the vertical use of the land. (The
city has lacked the guts to designate any retail areas for such vertical use, so half the
intent is now in effect dead.)
Staff, however, has come up with the perverted notion that the purpose of this
ordinance is to allow commercial uses on residentially-designated.land. THIS WAS
NEVER THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE -- IT IS PURELY STAFF'S PERVERSION
OF THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE!! I objected when staff trotted out this
interpretation of the ordinance for the house at Palm and Broad, but the council blindly
went ahead and set a terrible precedent by approving that monster. Now that the
"predecent" has been set, we see something that's absolutely horrible -- a "mixed use"
on residentially-designated land of service commercial and.residential uses. What kind
of awful living environment will that create? Corrie on! We're talking industrial slum!
Let's look at the mess we are creating in this city in the name of"mixed use," and quit
creating more of a mess. What's next, a McDonalds in an R-1 area on grounds kids will
not have to get their pearents to drive them out of the neighborhood?
As the author of the mixed use ordinance, I repudiate what is being done with it. If the
city continues on its present course of abusing the mixed use ordinance to justify any
dreadful development scheme, the author of the mixed use ordinance will be joining
with the growing number of citizens who seek its repeal.
Richard Schmidt RECEIVED
APR 2 3 2001
SLO CITY COUNCIL
� :' o w CCD n CD o n °; �.� SD 0 Y
m nCD CD VC�ifrA'
PT �G, �' '� rr�. c y
. CD
�' r' '. C 'S �-. CD �. CSD CD O 'S
. �. w o. o �..� c r ,n a' Z O c a CD
O r.`C3 VJ' m J
CD
O a' CD .. O L3 p r CL m ..
n � `C3 w .n O O coCD CDO GCD "C
C
SD a
CD CDo ° A a.�
w n = CO
Ca, COa' � a OCD =• O
M CD ° CDaO. c �
n � 7 Dp' 7CD n
CD WO O m O 0
bHK
CDrA
O
m C p O N O mca . O
CD ° 0 O O' 0 = M A� .< CND O a C�
D 'O c CD "" W :1.`< O co , ' � O
CDr ° CD go
° m O°o �
p 90 CD SDs M t3 x �. y �' o' fD
r.
Oi..l O CD y l J
O O O CD r CD tiO '"7 OQCD CD
< O C Z
rA.vc C CD
�° p 'C °" c G m y z H
0 90
O .�-. 0. O ?: N � O p c
r m n o O
OQ CD m a. O.
o o ° <' D a
¢' O O
CDCD
0 --. ¢ CCD a; c �• ' SCD a.0 CD
?� v dQ mco Eg G. m a G Op C
CD � �"h� � � fA p d'o � y'� „�,� '�. � cm
y m CD El O. CD CCD C �0 ' m aCD W J
O C CD m O k O w C' O QQ =- •CD•' C�
GQM CD
CD o c ' o. n �' o
W CD < m CD
CD 20 CD fJQ
^ cn n CD CO
CDCD 0
� n p O O * p 0 0 p
CD '+ ``3' cn10 CD
QQ
0 CD
yCD CD OOQ �! CD CD C ` SCD ' M
cn CD
CD CD 0 m .'3 C p c n p7 .y M CD .0
z. C C CCD M C.O t �•
W
CD
co
ccn
ccn m " m CD U4 �'
luos
at of san ®BBS
' 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
April 11, 2001
Covey III
Attn: Matt Quaglino
815 Fiero Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: GP/R/U/ER for 811 El Capitan
Dear Mr. Quaglino:
The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a General Plan
Amendment, Rezoning for a Mixed Use Development,and Parking Reduction at 811 El
Capitan.
The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 24, 2001 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. Other hearings may be
held before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City
Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
For additional information or questions concerning this item, please contact the
Community Development Department at 781-7170. The Council agenda report with
recommendation by staff will be sent to you on the Wednesday before the meeting.
Please call the City Clerk's Office at 781-7102 if you would prefer to pick up the agenda
report.
S,
Lee Price, CMC
City Clerk
cc: C.M. Florence, Oasis Associates
Whitney McIlvaine
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
l Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
v
i
�►II�I 11111) I �����IIIIII�IIIIIIIIIII IIIA
city of sAn luis oBispo
��ii 1`tb 61 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
April 11, 2001
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
811 El Capitan
GP/R/U/E 108-00
You are being notified that the San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to
consider a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning fora Mixed Use Development, and Parking
Reduction at 811 El Capitan. You are being notified because our records indicate that you own
property or reside within the immediate vicinity of this project.
The Public Hearing portion of the meeting will be held on Tuesday,April 24,2001,
beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall,990 Palm Street. The public is
welcome to attend and comment. Written comments are encouraged. Other items may be discussed
before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court,you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to,the public hearing.
The agenda report, including recommendation by staff,will be available for review in the
City Clerk's Office(Room#1 of City Hall) the Wednesday before the meeting.
For more information,please contact Whitney McIly e of the o unity Development
Department at 781-7164.
Lee Price, C.M.C.
City Clerk
m b
0
8116 Capitan GMUM
R 108M
/�r The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
City of San Luis Obispo
Department of Communitj evelopment 990 Palm Street
Planning Application San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805)781-7172
Project Address 811 EL CAPITAN Parcel# 053-411-001
*Other Addresses 053-411-010(903 EL CAPITAN)
Legal Description CY SLO SLO SUB TR PTN LTS 103&104
Zoning 1 C-S Zoning 2 C/OS
Property Owner COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP
In Care Of
Owner Address 815 FIERO LN
SLO CA 93401-8937
Applicant Name COVEY III C/O MATT QUAGLINO Day Phone(805)543-0560
Address 815 FIERO LANE
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401
Representative (C.M. FLORENCE-OASIS ASSOC? Day Phone(805)541-4509
Address 03427 MIGUELITO COURT
1 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401
Send correspondence to X applicant X representative owner other(see file)
Application made pursuant to Chapter/Section of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Planning Services Summary
Application# Type of Application Received Fee
GP/R 108-00 Amend land use element and zoning map 06/28/00 $4,554
designation from C-S and R-2 to C-S-MU(with
C/OS to remain)
ER 108-00 evaluation of proposed general plan 06/28/00 $1,202
amendment,rezoning,and mixed use
development
108-00 Fish&Game/Negative Dec. 06/28/00 $1,250
U 108-00 use permit to allow a mix of commercial and 01/22/01 $1,620
residential uses as part of a rezoning
application
Total fees $8,626
Total Fees does not match Total Paid!
Received By RONALD WHISENAND
Fee Paid by Representative (1,620)
Assigned planner WHITNEY MCLVAINE
Hearings GP/R PC Hearing 09/13/00
ER PC Hearing 09/13/00
U PC Hearing 01/24/01
U CC Hearing 03/06/01
04/11/01 08:54:47 Mkpecky Label List Page 1
Occupants 0 meters
File Number. U 108-00 Source Address: 0 U Owners 100 meters
Additional Source Addresses: 053-111-010"
Occupants
OCCUPANT 4090 BROAD
OCCUPANT 4101 BROAD non-mail
OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B1
OCCUPANT 3563 Sueldo Street#1 (for 4115 BROAD)
OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B4
OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B5
OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B6
OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B7
OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD#810
OCCUPANT 4211 BROAD duplicate
OCCUPANT 4211 BROAD# A
OCCUPANT 4211 BROAD# B
OCCUPANT P.O.Box 12053(for 4211 BROAD)
OCCUPANT 860 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 861 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 863 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 867 CALLS DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 869 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 875 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 880 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 882 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 885 CALLE DEL CAMINOS non-mail
OCCUPANT 898 CALLE DEL CAMINOS duplicate
OCCUPANT 906 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 908 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 811 EL CAPITAN
OCCUPANT 811 EL CAPITAN# non-mail
OCCUPANT 833 EL CAPITAN non-mail
OCCUPANT 835 EL CAPITAN
OCCUPANT 840 EL CAPITAN
OCCUPANT 865 EL CAPITAN non-mail
OCCUPANT 885 EL CAPITAN
OCCUPANT 903 EL CAPITAN non-mail
OCCUPANT 905 EL CAPITAN non-mail
OCCUPANT 907 EL CAPITAN
Owners
BARKSDALE JEFFREY&LORI 894 EL CAPITAN WAY
BEESLEY BEN 898 EL CAPITAN WAY
BERGANTZ INTERIOR SYSTEMS INC A CA 735 BUCKLEY RD(for 906 CALLE DEL CAMINOS)
BERGER TRACY M&MARY E 878 EL CAPITAN WAY
BEZEK DEBRA C ETAL 866 EL CAPITAN WY
BLAIR BARBARA A ETAL 4370 BROAD ST
BLAIR RAY T&BARBARA A 4300 BROAD ST
CANNON I LLC A CA LLC 13 CORPORATE PLAZA STE 200(for 4041 BROAD)
COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP 815 FIERO LN(for 811 EL CAPITAN)
COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP 815-B FIERO LN(for 4211 BROAD) duplicate
COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP 815 FIERO LN(for 811 EL CAPITAN) duplicate
COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP 815-B FIERO LN
City of San Luis Obispo Administration 990 Palm Street(for 900 EL CAPITAN) non-mail
ELIJAH MATHEWS&ANAUNDDA 898 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
FITZPATRICK SHANNON O 1356 SWEETBAY LN(for 840 EL CAPITAN)
GEARHART KELLY V 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 885 EL CAPITAN) duplicate
04111/01 08:54:47 Mkpecky - Label List — Page 2
Occupants 0 meters
File Number: U 108-00 Source Address: 0 U Owners 100 meters
Additional Source Addresses: 053-411-010'
GEARHART KELLY V 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 865 EL CAPITAN) duplicate
GEARHART KELLY V ETAL 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 913 EL CAPITAN)
GEARHART KELLY V ETAL 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 921 EL CAPITAN) duplicate
GIN WAYNE 852 EL CAPTAIN WAY
HERNANDEZ SERGIO&GUADALUPE C 909 EL CAPITAN
HILL KEVIN S&ELAINE L 870 EL CAPITAN WAY
INTERNET SLO LLC A CA LLC 1010 PEACH ST(for 735 TANK FARM)
JOHNSON MICHAEL P&TAUSCHA C 892 EL CAPITAN WAY
KNOUSE TODD M&DINA M 907 EL CAPITAN WAY
LEN JASON TRE ETAL 1771 CORBETT CANYON RD(for 850 FIERO)
LIVERMORE LAWRENCE T&MERLIE P 835 EL CAPITAN WAY
LYLE JOHN P 858 EL CAPITAN WAY
MORIN MICHAEL F TRE ETAL 2116 DEL NORTE(for 4090 BROAD)
MUSCARELLA JP JR TRE 1360 RED BROME PL(for 936 FULLER)
RHODES GEORGE AL TRE ETAL 855 CALLE.DEL CAMINOS
SCHOENSEE SYDNEY K ETAL 3909 POINTSETTIA(for 888 EL CAPITAN)
SIMARD PAUL&LISA A 884 EL CAPITAN WAY
SKAGGS RANDALL L ETUX 665 MOUNTAIN VIEW(for 905 EL CAPITAN)
SKAGGS RANDY ETUX PO BOX 14042(for 903 EL CAPITAN)
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS%CORPORATE TAX DEPT-RE 749 ONE STATE FARM PLAZA(for 4058 BROAD)
STEARNS ALAN&SHERYL 862 EL CAPITAN WAY
STRAMPE GREG W&JACKIE 876 EL CAPITAN WAY
TAVASSOLI HABIB 394 CHARLES(for 917 EL CAPITAN)
TAVASSOLI HABIB 394 CHARLES DR(for 911 EL CAPITAN)
TAVASSOLI HABIB 394 CHARLES(for 915 EL CAPITAN) duplicate
TAVASSOLI M ALI %394 CHARLES(for 919 EL CAPITAN)
TRIPP DAVID A&JENNIFER J 850 EL CAPITAN WAY
WARD VIRGINIA A TRE 895 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
WILLIAMS GERALD A TRE ETAL 178 BROAD ST
68 labels printed on 04/11/01 at 08:54:47 by Mkpecky
0
-
70 cm
y �
mmmmmommod
,
^
��'7 1:
L4J_LJJ }5` yx
Solid =Owner and Occupant
Diagonal Lines = Occupant Only
Cross Hatch =Owner Only
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
GEODATA SERVICES
955 MORRO STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401
805 791-7167 04/11/01 08:54
FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
4090 BROAD 4115 BROAD# B1 3563 Sueldo Street#1
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
4115 BROAD# 64 4115 BROAD# B5 4115 BROAD# B6
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-
FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
4115 BROAD# B7 4115 BROAD#B10 4211 BROAD# A
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-
FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
4211 BROAD# B P.O.Box 12053 860 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-
FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
861 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 863 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 867 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-
FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
869 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 875 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 880 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-
FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
882 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 906 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 908 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-
FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
811 EL CAPITAN 835 EL CAPITAN 840 EL CAPITAN
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-
FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00 053-410-013/FILE#:108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT BARKSDALE JEFFREY&LORI
885 EL CAPITAN 907 EL CAPITAN 894 EL CAPITAN WAY
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SLO CA 93401-7943
J
053-410-014/FILE#:108-00 053-411-008/FILE#7..108-00 053-410-009/FILE#:108-00
BEESLEY BEN BERGANTZ INTERIOR SYSTEMS INC A CA BERGER TRACY M&MARY E
898 EL CAPITAN WAY 735 BUCKLEY RD 878 EL CAPITAN WAY
SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-8172 SLO CA 93401-7943
0533410-006/FILE#:108-00 053-411-014/FILE#:.108-00 053-411-013/FILE#:108-00
BEZEK DEBRA C ETAL BLAIR BARBARA A ETAL BLAIR RAY T&BARBARA A
866 EL CAPITAN WY 4370 BROAD ST 4300 BROAD ST
SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-7994 SLO CA 93401-7928
076-411-052/FILE#:108-00 053-411-001/FILE#:108-00 076-412-002/FILE#108-00
CANNON I LLC A CA LLC COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP
13 CORPORATE PLAZA STE 200 815 FIERO LN 815-8 FIERO LN
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660- SLO CA 93401-8937 SLO CA 93401-8937
053-411-009/FILE#:108-00 053-410-001/FILE#:108-00 053-410-021/FILE#:108-00
ELIJAH MATHEWS&ANAUNDDA FITZPATRICK SHANNON 0 GEARHART KELLY V ETAL
898 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 1356 SWEETBAY LN 6205 ALCANTARA AVE
SLO CA 93401-7942 SLO CA 93401-7843 ATASCADERO CA 93422-5168
053-410-003/FILE#:108-00 053-410-019/FILE#:108-00 053-410-007/FILE#:108-00
GIN WAYNE HERNANDEZ SERGIO&GUADALUPE C HILL KEVIN S&ELAINE L
852 EL CAPTAIN WAY 909 EL CAPITAN 870 EL CAPITAN WAY
SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-7943
053-083-024/FILE#:108-00 053-410-012/FILE#:108-00 053-410-018/FILE#:108-00
INTERNET SLO LLC A CA LLC JOHNSON MICHAEL P&TAUSCHA C KNOUSE TODD M&DINA M
1010 PEACH ST 892 EL CAPITAN WAY 907 EL CAPITAN WAY
SLO CA 93401-2770 SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-7978
076-412-001/FILE#:108-00 053-411-002/FILE#:108-00 053-410-004/FILE#:106-00
LEN JASON TRE ETAL LIVERMORE LAWRENCE T&MERLIE P LYLE JOHN P
1771 CORBETT CANYON RD 835 EL CAPITAN WAY 858 EL CAPITAN WAY
ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420-4917 SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-7943
0533410-016/FILE#:108-00 053-411-015/FILE#:108-00 053-411-011/FILE#:108-00
MORIN MICHAEL F TRE ETAL MUSCARELLA JP JR TRE RHODES GEORGE AL TRE ETAL
2116 DEL NORTE 1360 RED BROME PL 855 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
LOS OSOS CA 93402-2306 ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420-4948 SLO CA 93401-7942
0533410-011/FILE#:108-00 0533410-010/FILE#:108-00 053-411-006/FILE#:108-00
SCHOENSEE SYDNEY K ETAL SIMARD PAUL&LISA A SKAGGS RANDALL L ETUX
3909 POINTSETTIA 884 EL CAPITAN WAY 665 MOUNTAIN VIEW
SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93405-2348
053-411-010/FILE#:108-00 053-083-023/FILE#:108-00 053-410-005/FILE#:108-00
SKAGGS RANDY ETUX STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS CO STEARNS ALAN&SHERYL.
PO BOX 14042 %CORPORATE TAX DEPT-RE 749 862 EL CAPITAN WAY
SLO CA 93406-4042 ONE STATE FARM PLAZA SLO CA 93401-7943
BLOOMINGTON IL 61710-0001
053-410-0081FILE#:108-00 053-410-0231FILE#:108-00 053-410-020/FILE#:108-00
STRAMPE GREG W&JACKIE TAVASSOLI HABIB TAVASSOLI HABIB
876 EL CAPITAN WAY 394 CHARLES 394 CHARLES DR
SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-8201 SLO CA 93401-8201
053-410-024/FILE#:108-00 053-410-002/FILE#:108-00 053-411-012/FILE#:108-00
TAVASSOLI M ALI TRIPP DAVID A&JENNIFER J WARD VIRGINIA A TRE
%394 CHARLES 850 EL CAPITAN WAY 895 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
SLO CA 93401-8201 SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-7942
076-411-043/FILE#:108-00
WILLIAMS GERALD A TRE ETAL
178 BROAD ST
SLO CA 93405-1708
04/11/01 08:58:27 Mkpecky Label List Page 1
Occupants 0 meters
File Number. U 108-00 Source Address: 0 U Owners 100 meters
Additional Source Addresses: 053-411-010'
Occupants
OCCUPANT 4090 BROAD
OCCUPANT 4101 BROAD non-mail
OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B1
OCCUPANT 3563 Sueldo Street#1 (for 4115 BROAD)
OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B4
OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B5
OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B6
OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B7
OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD#B10
OCCUPANT 4211 BROAD duplicate
OCCUPANT 4211 BROAD# A
OCCUPANT 4211 BROAD# B
OCCUPANT P.O.Box 12053(for 4211 BROAD)
OCCUPANT 860 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 861 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 863 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 867 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 869 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 875 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 880 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 882 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 885 CALLE DEL CAMINOS non-mail
OCCUPANT 898 CALLE DEL CAMINOS duplicate
OCCUPANT 906 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 908 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
OCCUPANT 811 EL CAPITAN
OCCUPANT 811 EL CAPITAN# non-mail
OCCUPANT 833 EL CAPITAN non-mail
OCCUPANT 835 EL CAPITAN
OCCUPANT 840 EL CAPITAN
OCCUPANT 865 EL CAPITAN non-mail
OCCUPANT 885 EL CAPITAN
OCCUPANT 903 EL CAPITAN non-mail
OCCUPANT 905 EL CAPITAN non-mail
OCCUPANT 907 EL CAPITAN
Owners
BARKSDALE JEFFREY&LORI 894 EL CAPITAN WAY
BEESLEY BEN 898 EL CAPITAN WAY
BERGANTZ INTERIOR SYSTEMS INC A CA 735 BUCKLEY RD(for 906 CALLE DEL CAMINOS)
BERGER TRACY M&MARY E 878 EL CAPITAN WAY
BEZEK DEBRA C ETAL 866 EL CAPITAN WY
BLAIR BARBARA A ETAL 4370 BROAD ST
BLAIR RAY T&BARBARA A 4300 BROAD ST
CANNON I LLC A CA LLC 13 CORPORATE PLAZA STE 200(for 4041 BROAD)
COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP 815 FIERO LN(for 811 EL CAPITAN)
COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP 815-B FIERO LN(for 4211 BROAD) duplicate
COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP 815 FIERO LN(for 811 EL CAPITAN) duplicate
COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP 815-B FIERO LN
City of San Luis Obispo Administration 990 Palm Street(for 900 EL CAPITAN) non-mail
ELIJAH MATHEWS&ANAUNDDA 898 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
FITZPATRICK SHANNON 0 1356 SWEETBAY LN(for 840 EL CAPITAN)
GEARHART KELLY V 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 885 EL CAPITAN) duplicate
04/11/01 08:58:27 Mkpecky Label List Page 2
Occupants 0 meters
File Number. U 108-00 Source Address: 0 U Owners 100 meters
Additional Source Addresses: 053-411-010'
GEARHART KELLY V 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 865 EL CAPITAN) duplicate
GEARHART KELLY V ETAL 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 913 EL CAPITAN)
GEARHART KELLY V ETAL 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 921 EL CAPITAN) duplicate
GIN WAYNE 852 EL CAPTAIN WAY
HERNANDEZ SERGIO&GUADALUPE C 909 EL CAPITAN
HILL KEVIN S&ELAINE L 870 EL CAPITAN WAY
INTERNET SLO LLC A CA LLC 1010 PEACH ST(for 735 TANK FARM)
JOHNSON MICHAEL P&TAUSCHA C 892 EL CAPITAN WAY
KNOUSE TODD M&DINA M 907 EL CAPITAN WAY
LEN JASON TRE ETAL 1771 CORBETT CANYON RD(for 850 FIERO)
LIVERMORE LAWRENCE T&MERLIE P 835 EL CAPITAN WAY
LYLE JOHN P 858 EL CAPITAN WAY
MORIN MICHAEL F TRE ETAL 2116 DEL NORTE(for 4090 BROAD)
MUSCARELLA JP JR TRE 1360 RED BROME PL(for 936 FULLER)
RHODES GEORGE AL TRE ETAL 855 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
SCHOENSEE SYDNEY K ETAL 3909 POINTSETTIA(for 888 EL CAPITAN)
SIMARD PAUL&LISA A 884 EL CAPITAN WAY
SKAGGS RANDALL L ETUX 665 MOUNTAIN VIEW(for 905 EL CAPITAN)
SKAGGS RANDY ETUX PO BOX 14042(for 903 EL CAPITAN)
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS%CORPORATE TAX DEPT-RE 749 ONE STATE FARM PLAZA(for 4058 BROAD)
STEARNS ALAN&SHERYL 862 EL CAPITAN WAY
STRAMPE GREG W&JACKIE 876 EL CAPITAN WAY
TAVASSOLI HABIB 394 CHARLES(for 917 EL CAPITAN)
TAVASSOLI HABIB 394 CHARLES DR(for 911 EL CAPITAN)
TAVASSOLI HABIB 394 CHARLES(for 915 EL CAPITAN) duplicate
TAVASSOLI M ALI %394 CHARLES(for 919 EL CAPITAN)
TRIPP DAVID A&JENNIFER J 850 EL CAPITAN WAY
WARD VIRGINIA A TRE 895 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
WILLIAMS GERALD A TRE ETAL 178 BROAD ST
68 labels printed on 04/11/01 at 08:58:27 by Mkpecky
�i7
Fx y ti n
lbby
XX X
LLI
f
ti, TYP Px f .
Y
h f Y 'X'�} I �% ty X X f'M '�ry•
^F� J b✓Y Y Ahi(1' h~'C V 1\�.Yy./ "S
Solid =Owner and Occupant
Diagonal Lines =Occupant Only
Cross Hatch =Owner Only
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
GEODATA SERVICES
955 MORRO STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO•CA 93401
805 781-7167 04/11/01 08:58
FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE.NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
4090 BROAD 4115 BROAD# B1 3563 Sueldo Street#I
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
4115 BROAD# B4 4115 BROAD# B5 4115 BROAD# B6
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-
FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
4115 BROAD# B7 4115 BROAD#B10 4211 BROAD# A
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-
FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
4211 BROAD# B P.O.Box 12053 860 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-
FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
861 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 863 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 867 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-
FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
869 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 875 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 880 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-
FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
882 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 906 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 908 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-
FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
811 EL CAPITAN 835 EL CAPITAN 840 EL CAPITAN
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-
FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00 053-410-013/FILE#:108-00
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT BARKSDALE JEFFREY&LORI
885 EL CAPITAN 907 EL CAPITAN 894 EL CAPITAN WAY
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SLO CA 93401-7943
O
053-410-014/FILE#:108-00 053-411-00B/FILE#:108-00 053-410-009/FILE#108-00
BEESLEY BEN BERGANTZ INTERIOR SYSTEMS INC A CA BERGER TRACY M&MARY E
898 EL CAPITAN WAY 735 BUCKLEY RD 878 EL CAPITAN WAY
SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-8172 SLO CA 93401-7943
053-410-006/FILE#:108-00 053-411-014/FILE#:108-00 053-411-013/FILE#:108-00
BEZEK DEBRA C ETAL BLAIR BARBARA A ETAL BLAIR RAY T&BARBARA A
866 EL CAPITAN WY 4370 BROAD ST 4300 BROAD ST
SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-7994 SLO CA 93401-7928
076-411-052/FILE#:108-00 053-41 1-001/FILE#:108-00 076-412-002/FILE#:108-00
CANNON I LLC A CA LLC COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP
13 CORPORATE PLAZA STE 200 815 FIERO LN 815-8 FIERO LN
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660- SLO CA 93401-8937 SLO CA 93401-8937
053-411-009/FILE#:108-00 053-410-001/FILE#:108-00 053-410-021/FILE#:108-00
ELIJAH MATHEWS&ANAUNDDA FITZPATRICK SHANNON 0 GEARHART KELLY V ETAL
898 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 1356 SWEETBAY LN 6205 ALCANTARA AVE
SLO CA 93401-7942 SLO CA 93401-7843 ATASCADERO CA 93422-5168
053-410-003/FILE#:108-00 053-410-019/FILE#:108-00 053-410-007/FILE#:108-00
GIN WAYNE HERNANDEZ SERGIO&GUADALUPE C HILL KEVIN S&ELAINE L
852 EL CAPTAIN WAY 909 EL CAPITAN 870 EL CAPITAN WAY
SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-7943
053-083-024/FILE#:108-00 053-410-0121FILE#:108-00 053-410-018/FILE#:108-00
INTERNET SLO LLC A CA LLC JOHNSON MICHAEL P&TAUSCHA C KNOUSE TODD M&DINA M
1010 PEACH ST 892 EL CAPITAN WAY 907 EL CAPITAN WAY
SLO CA 93401-2770 SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-7978
076-412-001/FILE#:108-00 053-411-002/FILE#108-00 053-410-004/FILE#:108-00
LEN JASON TRE ETAL LIVERMORE LAWRENCE T&MERLIE P LYLE JOHN P
1771 CORBETT CANYON RD 835 EL CAPITAN WAY 858 EL CAPITAN WAY
ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420-4917 SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-7943
053-410-016/FILE#:108-00 053-411-015/FILE#:108-00 053-411-011/FILE#:108-00
MORIN MICHAEL F TRE ETAL MUSCARELLA JP JR TRE RHODES GEORGE AL TRE ETAL
2116 DEL NORTE 1360 RED BROME PL 855 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
LOS OSOS CA 93402-2306 ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420-4948 SLO CA 93401-7942
053-410-011/FILE#:108-00 053-410-010/FILE#:108-00 053-411-006/FILE#:108-00
SCHOENSEE SYDNEY K ETAL SIMARD PAUL&LISA A SKAGGS RANDALL L EiUX
3909 POINTSEfTIA 884 EL CAPITAN WAY 665 MOUNTAIN VIEW
SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93405-2348
_1
053-411-010/FILE#:108-00 053-083-023/FILE#:108-00 053-410-005/FILE#:108-00
SKAGGS RANDY ETUX STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS CO STEARNS ALAN 8 SHERYL
PO BOX 14042 %CORPORATE TAX DEPT-RE 749 862 EL CAPITAN WAY
SLO CA 93406-4042 ONE STATE FARM PLAZA SLO CA 93401-7943
BLOOMINGTON IL 61710-0001
053-410-008/FILE#:108-00 053-410-023/FILE#:108-00 053-410-020/FILE#108-00
STRAMPE GREG W 8 JACKIE TAVASSOLI HABIB TAVASSOLI HABIB
876 EL CAPITAN WAY 394 CHARLES 394 CHARLES DR
SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-8201 SLO CA 93401-8201
053-410-024/FILE#:108-00 053-410-002/FILE#:108-00 053-411-012/1FILE4:108-00
TAVASSOLI M ALI TRIPP DAVID A 8 JENNIFER J WARD VIRGINIA A TRE
%394 CHARLES 850 EL CAPITAN WAY 895 CALLE DEL CAMINOS
SLO CA 93401-8201 SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-7942
076.411-043/FILE#:108-00
WILLIAMS GERALD A TRE ETAL
178 BROAD ST
SLO CA 93405-1708