The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/07/2003, PH3 - A REQUEST FOR A DENSITY BONUS OF 58% TO ALLOW AN AFFORDABLE, SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT WITH 40 1-BEDRO CouncilMdi�De. l D3 acEnoA RepoRt Rem Num6., C I TY OF SAN L U IS 0 B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director* �o� -TVA Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate Planner SUBJECT: A REQUEST FOR A DENSITY BONUS OF 58% TO ALLOW AN AFFORDABLE, SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT WITH 401-BEDROOM APARTMENTS; 2005 JOHNSON AVENUE,ARC 147-02. CAO RECOMMENDATION Approve the request for a density bonus, subject to Architectural Review Commission review and approval of the project. DISCUSSION Situation The City has received a request for a density bonus from the San Luis Obispo Non-Profit Housing Corporation, pursuant to Chapter 17.90 of the Municipal Code (Affordable Housing Incentives, Attachment #3). This project is automatically entitled to a density bonus of 25%, and is eligible for an additional density bonus of an unspecified amount because all of the apartments will be rented to low-income senior citizens. An additional density bonus of 58% is requested. The project design will be reviewed under the jurisdiction of the ARC, but only the Council may act on the density bonus request. Previous Review As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to relocate the Miller/Hathway House, presently located at the corner of Ella and Johnson, to a more central location on the project site. The house would be used as a community room and caretaker's quarters. The CHC reviewed the proposed house relocation on October 24, 2002. The CHC determined that the house represents a significant resource, and supported the house relocation, which will provide for the restoration and long-term preservation of the building(Attachment#5). Data Summary Address: 2005 Johnson Avenue Applicant/Property Owner: San Luis Obispo Non-Profit Housing Corporation Representative: Jeff Dillon, AIA Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density Residential) General Plan: Medium Density Residential Environmental status: Statutorily exempt (CEQA Guidelines Section 15280) Council Agenda Report Density Bonus Request, 2005 Johnson Avenue, ARC 147-02 Page 2 Site Description The project site is bordered by Johnson Avenue, Ella Street and Sierra Way. The area of the lot is approximately 1.2 acres. The Miller/Hathway House, a historic resource, is presently located at the corner of Johnson and Ella. South of the project site is more R-2 zoned land that is owned by the First Baptist Church of SLO. The adjacent residential land is unimproved and is used for church parking. The site slopes down 30 feet from its high point along Johnson (328 ft. el.) to the low point at Sierra(298 ft. el.). The average cross-slope of the property is approximately 8.5%. Project Description The San Luis Obispo Non-Profit Housing Corporation is proposing to build a 40-unit affordable, senior citizen housing development on a 1.2 acre site at the comer of Johnson Avenue, Ella Street and Sierra Way. Five new buildings are proposed, with 6 to 12 1-bedroom units each. On-site parking is provided for 31 vehicles, which exceeds the City's parking requirement for the project by nine spaces. The project includes the relocation and rehabilitation of the Miller/Hathway House for use as a community room, manager's office and apartment. Evaluation San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 provides incentives for developers who build affordable housing. This project is automatically entitled to a 25% density bonus because it will be 100%affordable. The code also gives the Housing Authority the right to ask for an additional density bonus of an unspecified amount because the proposed units will be occupied exclusively by senior citizens. Based on the current zoning of the property and the 25% density bonus, the Housing Authority can develop the project at 15 density units per acre by right. This is the equivalent of 27 1- bedroom apartments. The housing authority is asking Council to grant a further density bonus of 58% to develop 40 1-bedroom apartments, for a total density bonus of 83% over the baseline for . the R-2 zone. Project Proposal vs. Market Rate Housing It is useful to compare the project proposal with a market rate housing project to understand the physical differences between the projects. With the requested density bonus, the total number of units would be much greater than would normally be expected in the R-2 zone. However, occupancy levels and Average Daily Trips (ADT) are much less for senior citizens than for the general population. As a result, population density and associated impacts such as a lack of on- street parking and traffic congestion are not significantly greater for the project proposal than would be expected for a market-rate development. If the project site were developed at the standard R-2 density with market-rate housing consisting of one, two and three bedroom units, the population density would be conservatively estimated at 26.83 people per acre (based on a household size of 2.3 people per unit, 1990 Census). Development of the site, as proposed, would result in a population density of 33.3 people per acre because occupancy will be limited to individual seniors. The lower occupancy level for � -a Council Agenda Report Density Bonus Request, 2005 Johnson Avenue, ARC 147-02 Page 3 elderly housing projects means that for the total proposed density bonus of 83%, population density will increase by just 25%. The parking provided for the proposed project would be similar to the parking requirements fora market rate project. If the project site were developed with a market rate project consisting of 14' 2-bedroom apartments, the parking requirement would be 28 parking spaces. For the proposed development, 22 parking spaces are required, but 31 parking spaces are provided. The Housing Authority is interested in providing the additional spaces because on-street parking is hard to find in this neighborhood, and parking in proximity to dwellings is especially important for seniors on this sloping site. Some of those spaces would also be used by caregivers during the day. Development Comparison Table Development Factors Standard Site Development Affordable Senior Housing Density Unit Value 12 density units per acre(which is Proposed at 22 density units per acre Site area= 1.2 acres equivalent to 21 1-bedroom apts.) (equivalent to 40 1-bedroom apts.) Estimated Population 26.83 people per acre(assumes 4 3- 33.3 people per net acre(assumes single Density at Project Build- bedroom apts., 5 2-bedroom apts. and occupancy for all units) Out 5 1-bedroom apts. with an occupancy rate of 2.3 people per unit) Parking Spaces 28 required 22 required,31 provided Average Daily Trips Trip Generation Rate=6.59 Trip Generation Rate=3.48 6.63 14 units=93 Trips 3.48*40 units= 139 Trips Setbacks: -Johnson Avenue 20' required 20' required, 15' requested -Ella Street 20' required 20' required, 15' requested -Sierra Way 20' required 20' required; 15' requested -Southern Prop. Line 9' required 9' required, 10' provided The Trip Generation Manual published by the Association of Traffic Engineers provides numbers for ADT based on a variety of different development types. The trip generation factor for a market rate low-rise apartment project is 6.59, which results in an ADT of 93 trips per day for the project. The trip generation factor for elderly housing is just over half that amount at 3.48, and ADT for the proposed project equals 139 trips. This comparison shows that the requested density bonus (83% more dense than the market rate development) results in an ADT 44% greater than would be expected with a market rate project. The applicant is proposing reduced street yards, from 20 feet to 15 feet for buildings on Ella Street and for the upper and lower parking lots on Johnson Avenue and Sierra Way. This request will be evaluated by the Architectural Review Commission, which has the authority to grant such setback exceptions if they find the project to be architecturally compatible with the site and with buildings on adjacent properties. The ARC will also evaluate the buildings for consistency with the City's recently adopted, Community Design Guidelines. � -3 Council Agenda Report - Density Bonus Request, 2005 Johnson Avenue,ARC 147-02 Page 4 Is the project compatible with the R-2 site? The project site is suited to the proposed density of development. The site is bordered by Johnson Avenue, an arterial road, and access to the signalized intersection at Bishop Street is available via Sierra Way. The proposed senior housing project will compliment the other uses developed along this section of Johnson Avenue, including the church, the hospitals, small medical offices and other residential uses. Development of the project site as proposed will also provide the Housing Authority with the resources to rehabilitate and preserve the Miller/Hathway House, a historic resource located on the project site. Is the density bonus consistent with the General Plan? Staff supports the proposed density bonus because the project is consistent with the General Plan and with the Medium Density Residential designation, According to Table 4 of the Land Use Element, areas designated for Medium Density Residential development should have an average population density of 25 people per acre. Population density in this neighborhood is much less than 25 people per acre when the adjacent church property, which is also designated Medium Density Residential, is factored in. As a result, the proposed density bonus is consistent with Table 4 of the Land Use Element because some higher density development is necessary to achieve the expected average population density of 25 people per acre in this neighborhood. The Land Use Element (LUE) states that the City may approve density bonuses that provide for elderly housing, consistent with State Law (LUE 2.4.2.b). The City has incorporated the State Law into the Zoning Regulations and a 25% density bonus is automatically granted to this project. The remaining 53% of the density bonus request is authorized by the Zoning Regulations, subject to Council approval. The proposed density bonus is consistent with Housing Element Policy 1.28.2 because it encourages housing that meets the special needs of low-income senior citizens. The project is also consistent with Housing Element Policy 1.27.2 because the project site is an appropriate location for infill housing. CHC Review and Neighborhood Input During the CHC review of the project proposal, neighbors of the project, including representatives from First Baptist Church, spoke in opposition to the size and scale of the proposed development. Concerns were also expressed relating to existing parking difficulties. Attachment#6 includes written correspondence provided by neighbors at the meeting. The Housing Authority made changes to the project design based on neighbors' comments. Two units were eliminated from building #4 to reduce the height of the building along the Church property line, and a greater setback has been provided between Sierra Way and the lower parking lot. The project architect also prepared a model so that neighbors could better understand the scale of the proposed buildings in comparison to existing buildings in the vicinity. The final project design will be presented to the ARC along with the CHC recommendation on the project (see Attachment 45). 3-� Council Agenda Report ` Density Bonus Request,2005 Johnson Avenue, ARC 147-02 Page 5 7��, Homes on Sierra Project ,�- Site a` o Photo of model provided for the neighborhood after concerns were expressed at the CHC meeting. CONCURRENCES Comments from other departments and government agencies relate to the proposed physical improvements will be forwarded to the ARC as part of their review of the project. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the proposed density bonus request, or approve the request for some smaller percentage. 2. Continue consideration of the project and provide direction to staff if new or additional information is necessary in order make a decision on the project. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Reduced Scale Project Plans Attachment 3: Affordable Housing Incentives, Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 Attachment 4: Project description provided by the applicant Attachment 5: CHC Agenda Report and Minutes, 10-24-02 meeting Attachment 6: Correspondence from neighbor's of the project Attachment 7: Draft Resolution"A,"approving the density bonus as recommended by staff Attachment 8: Draft Resolution`B,"denying the requested density bonus Urncodron/council/2005 Johnson(density bonus).doc r� claw invent 1 French Hospital General Hospital Vicinity Map ARC 147-02 30 0 30 60 Feet 2005 Johnson Avenue Oil 1111 '•* � � � � � � . . cllllllll WIN r. - sba�4� • >: t �- x l.� 1, r ; K , : r �IJul; �••� d6%ilIII' ;IIII!'Illm illli�llllllllll`I!'{I' �_ I : U. �=- ' .i :■ � `;` IIII � IIII■ I�� j�1, a �" BI � �_` ■ ■ �'� ' X11 I, ■■ ■■!I ■■ r on ■■I: ■■ as NMI an • I;g�� a �,;; IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII; IIIIIIIII � ' on ... f: =� I�r�ninuw uunnmuuununuu ■■ ■■': ■■ I II•,I '�• �/lllllllll 111111111 t IIIIIIIII i^I li[uuuum Inl:nnuunuunnum I -� Q®'"_ l__-___ IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII;i4,� �; ■ ■ ; ■ a,,, IIII IIII` —_-_ �{�Ohl �'�:'VIII IIII i IIIIIIII ,ii iris �■ ■■ ■■ „ I�luwl 1 i i - 11111111 1111111IJ , �; 'i:i{Ill l�illunuuussumr I'. ��: ill��l�ll�llllf IIIIIIII � 1►�III�II I�I�I�U II�III�II II;,. :IIIIIIII III Ii; ( i IJi Mm NMI: on 111°111 I • � '� , :�IIIII��'�ihlll'�1111111 Mimi= ® I IIII`; ■■ ' ■■ IIIIIIIIII II!illl I �' �`II■, `; �■I€ ■■ I II iIp IIII ;,. pilllillll IIIIIIIII ! IIIIuI�II�III16��IiIIIIIIIiIII;;: f �: :�: ' � { _ ,_ "� - � • :11111111 •_JAL I � 11111111 111111 ' %Illmm li�i`�I �'� ■■ I■■i; ■■ IIII ; IIII-® -yj IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ■ ■ � ■ _�_ � ��III ; ;IIIIIIIIIII IIII:IIIIIIIIIIIIIII \.IIIIIIIII IIIII�II: IIII Ilfdfililtu� nln�lunnillttlll \IIII II '" IIIIIIIII IIm' I� : el IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII` IIIIIIIII no ■■I ■■ III,I ■. (IIII I IIII_� Ill�ll�ul�,; IMIIIII��ll 11111111121111 �I@IIS '��■■!: ■■ p11111 i �I�,11111IIIII 11191111 1 � i�l,lll, �IIIL.. �III 11�111IIIIIII ��Illmllii: mmm I ,,,,,,,,J .,: �I111111;tI1UI111111 L11111111111111111 i :. 11lIIIIIII� illllllll 1°°:11°� II I°ug ' I,::;a ■■ i .. �Ill� 11111111111111 1110111 1 111I - - - - : MIMI / I r I ■■ ■■ii ■ � ,un..IJ � � ��: �� 11.111111111111f111111111;11111111111111 II■■l�1. ■■ � II■■ ■■�: s■ \ . IIII�•IINMI: 1 ..'111111111; 1111 I ""' . IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII � IIIIIIIII ME �I■ ISI, �. ism . � ; �I iulw,ll,,\IIIIIiInw 4\ ■■I ■■ : ■■rkg� I !ililIC�1'', W,II I�� .■ ■■i; ■■ 1 tpllul►°llllllll,��IIIII�IIIIIII��, � �tillllllll ILIIIIIII IIIIIIIII '11111111 � . I" . '. ,� _ � ,: ' , �. ' . � '►'111111111 I _ �� _� I II01O1�� . •111111111_IIIII _IIOIIJI I I �I •� ^.ir`, I IIII_■y� � � I 1�i� • 1 1 es i ■■ �I � I ■� IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII 1�s � p�mmlimo®�III�IIIiTir'I�VI1iIVV I /::,� ��II�IIIIIIIII�IIIII IIII I�IIIfI�II II ' _ II Iill�l --� =-d�_ :.,� 1101 I IIIIIIIII I�I�III �lonamw.,� Inl� t ■ G ; ■ ■ � ■ ■ _ .. ,a6MUs,I�II{IIIIIIIIIIEII6111lllllll • �_",III�LI III I/ •._ . •I � ■ ,.- I �� :�� II— a E� ■u-: ■■ ■■ � ■■ ■I ■■ 1 umn oil ■■ no ■■ . ■■ -:'I ■:Intlon: Amid �� 'I _. . ■■ .._ . ■■ ■■I; ■■ _-: ONE No �� _ - -- iu �iil�ii IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII 111 lilllllll I= -� -� 1= �, I I_r;, 11111111►i" IIIIIIIII !■'� ■■ -,.luulll Illami h'. >- Attachment 2 ! » L 2 u § O ! I | k■ oua a § § . § $ $ LUui __j k ` ! . � . . . . . ! | � � � � , . | . (L \ \. . . . .; . .. � • . � ` � � LL • } � § . � � - $ - ! E e LU - w B old | , . i F- t i � � K I LO z Toliu - ai9111111 IIIIIIIII ° I: ;,�;1;1;;1`1;1 � ��!lIIIIIII IIIIIIIII :: :.l � '■■'d .. /. �;li!u ilio /I III/�.. .. (� Iii ■■ i■ — �\i 'I;:;i; I �■■ u � IIIII■.1III• I� : � .II �I1:1111 � �:..�III� •�I IIIII_....IIII_.IIIIIV ��, �` 111 IDN ., ..� - .. t.�;it � IuI uml ��III,��,IIIII -• 111111 �Idllllllllllll�l�mnnmumnnl� umod�IllV�lmlll �I�!'I . �� .� 11iuiIl nun•w �ul!!Ili IIIIIIIIIIII • t m•tl1:al B �,Iliitllllllllj �� ''I IIV is Ilmu (IIIIIIIII I�1111111 !!�' , /�i;', hI I ' IIIIIIII II%Illiiiiiiiiiiiollll�' I�1I(III■{P4�''�!'PIII;I!►I € ��' � Ill!,�Iii�IIII-�IIIII ILI 1111.1..1.11 V 111, ;:: . �. .illla� • _ i` .i �..: . . 0111�11��111 , /;!ii■1111■!IIII�L. I L:.�,,,,,IIIIG�,,,�,,,�LIIG;,JIIIII .. � , �� II�I�► ,��,,,,, ,,,, .IIIIL.LIIL. II (\ �iig►gl !►►l►�►i► I►gI►►II \,'II►�I . ►�►I�I►I I�►Iiiiiii ,\'��■ ■■ ■■ IIS\;I;�e : ■■ �lilllllll (IIIIIIIII: IIIIIIIII �`��,�ptlllllll IIIIIIII nLCUAinen z § { z ! - o ad§k■ § @ ��_�R _ ! $ . k� / s § �u �w | z I | � , � U z B u 2 � f' a \ I & ■ e � � � k } . z Ifn { Ge ; > / . LU ! 0 & ) . @ w q f LU � | \ § � z . 7 _ § | 2 � � g . � � f e_ | to IF k . � .. � ]'�k Attachment 2 J IIII 15,/'T� s>� ,....-......- I�mIV•7AV llosullor �O"'•��"'"'iK�•�• � suoruaw�v a�vaaa�onl�a �'�"�•�'•"'••••"�'•, Hv,r swuwv,. di +� w►m+�-�1+ us � J e 4 e a� # e — - Ll ,r tli ii�E�E�4iI�EE➢i4i�� .l�f�.� m � .. •- . � tilaj J I DM Ai AI b.l .4'i ip ! - - Bill 3- l5 Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES Sections: 17.90.010 Purpose. 17.90.020 Definitions. 17.90.030 Standard incentives for housing projects. 17.90.040 Standard incentives for conversion of apartments to condominium projects. 17.90.050 Alternative or additional incentives. 17.90.060 Relationship to other city procedures. 17.90.070 Agreements for affordable housing. 17.90.080 Fees. 17.90.090 Affordability standards. 17.90.100 Occupant screening. 17.90.010 Purpose. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to encourage housing projects which incorporate units affordable to very-low, lower, and moderate income households, and qualifying seniors, and which conform to city development policies and standards, by providing density bonuses, or other equivalent incentives, as required by California Government Code Section 65915, et seq.(Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995;Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth below: A. "Density"means residential density as defined in Section 17.16.010 of this code. B. "Density bonus" means a density increase of at least twenty-five percent over the maximum density otherwise allowable under the zoning regulations. C."Director"means the community development director or his authorized representative. D. "Lower income households" shall have the meaning set forth in California Health and Safety Code, Section 50079.5; provided the income of such persons and families shall not exceed eighty percent of the median income within the county. E. "Very-low income households" shall have the meaning set forth in California Health and Safety Code, Section 50105. F. "Moderate income households" shall include those persons and families whose incomes exceed eighty percent but are less than or equal to one hundred twenty percent of the median income within the county. G. "Affordable" shall mean residential rent costs or sales prices which conform to the standards issued by the director and updated periodically to reflect state and/or federal housing cost indices. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.030 Standard incentives for housing projects. Printed from Folio Views Page 1 3-l to Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code A. This section shall apply only to housing projects consisting of five or more dwelling units. B. When a developer agrees to construct at least twenty percent of the units otherwise allowable under the zoning regulations for persons or families of lower or moderate income,the director shall grant the developer, upon the developer's request, a density bonus equivalent to an increase in density of at least twenty-five percent over the density otherwise allowed by the zoning regulations; and the developer shall be eligible to receive at least one of the development incentives described in Section 17.90.050. C. When a developer agrees to construct at least ten percent of the units otherwise allowable under the zoning regulations for very-low income households, the director shall grant the developer, upon the developer's request, a density bonus equivalent to an increase in density of at least twenty-five percent over the density otherwise allowed by the zoning regulations; and the developer shall be eligible for at least one of the development incentives described in Section 17.90.050. D. When a developer agrees to construct at least fifty percent of the total dwelling units in a residential project for qualifying senior residents, as defined in Section 51.3 of the Civil Code, the director shall grant the developer, upon the developer's request, a density bonus equivalent to an increase in density of at least twenty-five percent over the density otherwise allowed by the zoning regulations; and the developer shall be eligible to receive at least one of the incentives described in Section 17.90.050. E. If a developer agrees to construct housing for two or more of the categories listed in Section 17.90.030.(13), (C), and (D) above, the developer shall be entitled to a density bonus of at least twenty-five percent and shall be eligible to receive at least one of the development incentives described in Section 17.90.050. The city may, upon the developer's request, negotiate additional incentives in exchange for the increased provision for affordable housing. F. The developer may submit a preliminary proposal for the development of affordable housing prior to the submittal of any formal requests for general plan amendments, zoning amendments or subdivision map approvals. The city council shall, within ninety days of receiving a written preliminary proposal, notify the housing developer in writing of the procedures under which the city will comply with this chapter. G. Any request for a density bonus or other incentives shall be in writing, and shall include the following information, as well as any additional information required by the director: 1. The name of the developer; 2. The location of the proposed project; 3. The density allowed under the zoning regulations, as well as the proposed density; 4. The number and type (bedroom count) of dwellings and identification of those dwellings which are to be affordable to each household income category; 5. Whether the dwellings will be offered for sale or for rent; 6. The proposed sales price, financing terms, rental rates or other factors which will make the dwellings affordable to very-low, lower and moderate income households. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.040 Standard incentives for conversion of apartments to condominium projects. A. When an applicant for approval to convert apartments to condominium units agrees to provide at least thirty-three percent of the units of the proposed condominium project to households of lower or moderate income, or fifteen percent of the units of the proposed condominium project to very-low Printed from Folio Views Page 2 Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code income households, and agrees to pay for the reasonable, necessary administrative costs incurred by the city pursuant to this section, the director shall grant a density bonus equivalent to an increase in the units of twenty-five percent over the number of apartments, to be provided within the existing structure or structures proposed for conversion; provided, the director may place such reasonable conditions on the granting of the density bonus as he finds appropriate including, but not limited to, conditions which assure continued affordability of units to the targeted income groups or qualifying seniors. B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the city to approve a proposal to convert apartments to condominiums. C. An applicant shall not be eligible for a density bonus under this section if the apartments proposed for conversion constitute a housing development for which a density bonus or other incentives were provided under Sections 17.90.030 or 17.90.050. D. The city shall grant the developer's request for development incentive(s) unless the city council makes written findings of fact that the additional incentive(s) are not required to achieve affordable housing objectives as defined in Section 50062:5 of the Health and Safety Code, or to ensure that rents for the targeted dwelling units will be set and maintained in conformance with city affordable housing standards. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035§ 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.050 Alternative or additional incentives. A. When a developer agrees to construct housing for households of very-low, lower or moderate income households, or for qualifying senior households, and desires an incentive other than a density bonus as provided in Section 17.90.030 of this chapter, or when an applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project agrees to provide housing for households of very low, lower, or moderate income, or for qualifying senior households, and desires an incentive other than a density bonus as provided in Section 17.90.040, the developer or the applicant shall submit a proposal for consideration by the council. B. If the proposal is submitted by a developer of a housing project, the proposal shall include information set forth in Section 17.90.030 (G), as well as a description of the requested incentive, an estimate of the incentive's financial value in comparison with the financial of the density bonus allowed in Section 17.90.030, as well as the basis for the comparison estimate. Alternative incentive proposals may include but are not limited to one or more of the following: 1. Density bonus in excess of that provided in Section 17.90.030; 2. Waiver of application and processing fees; 3. Waiver of utility connection or park land in-lieu fees or park land dedication requirement; 4. City funded installation of off-site improvements which may be required for the project, such . as streets or utility lines; 5. Write-down of land costs; 6. Direct subsidy of construction costs or construction financing costs; 7. Approval of exceptions to subdivision or zoning property development standards, but only to the extent that such exceptions would be authorized by relevant provisions of this code; provided, that any proposal for an incentive which requires a direct financial contribution from the city shall also include provisions for assuring continued availability of designated units at affordable rents or sales prices fora period of not less than thirty years,or as otherwise required by State law. 8. Provide other,incentives of equivalent financial value to a density bonus based upon the land Printed from Folio Views Page 3 3-�4 Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code cost per dwelling unit. C. If the proposal is submitted by an applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project, the proposal shall include those relevant items set forth in Section 17.90.030 (G), plus the requested incentive, an estimate if the incentive's financial value in comparison with the financial value of the density bonus as set forth in Section 17.90.040, and the basis for the comparison estimate.Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the city to provide cash transfer payments or other monetary compensation. The city may reduce or waive requirements which the city might otherwise apply as conditions of conversion approval. D.Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the council to approve any alternate incentive. The developer or applicant has the standard incentive of a density bonus under Sections 17.90.030 and 17.90.040 if the council fails to approve an alternative incentive. E. The council action on any alternative incentive proposal shall be by resolution. Any such resolution shall include findings relating to the information required in subpart B or C of this section. F. The council shall respond to a proposal within ninety days after submittal of a complete proposal. The city clerk shall notify the developer or the applicant of the council's response. Should the council fail to approve a proposal for alternative incentives within ninety days after submittal of a complete proposal, the proposal shall be deemed denied, and the city clerk shall so advise the developer or applicant in writing. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.060 Relationship to other city procedures. A. Projects incorporating affordable housing and receiving density bonuses, incentives, or alternative incentives as provided in this chapter shall receive high priority processing, to the extent allowed by law. Operation of Sections 17.90.030 or 17.90.040, or approval of alternative incentives as provided in Section 17.90.050 shall not be construed as a waiver of standard development review procedures or an exemption of the project from city development standards other than those explicitly listed in the approving resolution. Should a project fail to receive any required city approval, the density bonus or alternative incentive granted under this chapter shall be null and void. B. Applications of Sections 17.90.030 and 17.90.040 to projects shall be ministerial acts for purposes of environmental review. Environmental documents need not be filed solely for recordation of agreements concerning the density bonus and provision of affordable housing. Normal environmental review procedures shall apply to the project applications. C. If the council approves an alternative incentive as provided in Section 17.90.050, such approval shall be subject to and conditioned upon an environmental determination being made for the project in the usual manner. The community development department shall outline for the council any probable, significant environmental effects which would result from the proposed incentive. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.070 Agreements for affordable housing. Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any project incorporating a density bonus or other incentive as provided in this chapter, the city and the project owner(s) shall enter into an agreement in a form acceptable to the city attorney, to be recorded in the office of the county recorder. The agreement shall specify mechanisms or procedures to assure the continued affordability and availability of the specified number of dwelling units to very-low, lower, and moderate income households and/or Printed from Folio Views Page 4 3- i9 ;. Attachment 3 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code qualifying seniors. The agreement shall also set forth those items required by Section 17.90.030 (G) of this chapter or any alternative incentives granted pursuant to Section 17.90.050 of this chapter. The agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all heirs, successors or assigns of the project or property owner, and shall ensure affordability fora period of not less than thirty years,or as otherwise required by State law. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.080 Fees. A. No fee in addition to normal project application fees shall be charged for a request fora density bonus pursuant to the provisions of Sections 17.90.030 or 17.90.040, except for reasonable, necessary administrative costs incurred by the city pursuant to Section 17.90.040. B. A fee not to exceed the amount charge for "preapplication concept review" may be charged for proposals submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.90.050. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.090 Affordability standards. A. The community development department shall publish and revise as needed a schedule of rental rates and sales prices for dwellings which will be affordable to households with incomes as provided in this chapter. The schedule shall substantially conform with the affordability standards as established by state or federal law. B. The maximum rental rates and sales prices as revised, generally on an annual basis, shall remain in effect for projects receiving density bonuses or additional incentives under this chapter as provided in the affordable housing agreement, but in no case less than the minimum term required by state law. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.100 Occupant screening. A. The affordable dwellings developed pursuant to this chapter shall be available to qualified occupants without regard to race, religion, national origin, sex, occupation or other affiliation. Occupants may be screened on the basis of age only to qualify those occupants seeking housing designed for the elderly. B. The city housing authority shall screen prospective occupants so that dwellings developed pursuant to this chapter shall be occupied by households with the appropriate qualifying incomes or ages. Owners of projects shall enter into agreements with the housing authority for such screening services. C. Preference in occupant screening shall be given to those employed within or residing within the city or the immediately surrounding area, to the extent that this provision does not conflict with state or federally funded housing assistance programs which may apply to a particular project;or other applicable law. This section is to insure that those households having the greatest difficulty obtaining housing at market rates within the city shall be able to occupy affordable housing made available pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985). Printed from Folio Views Page 5 3-2fl Attachment 4 ; L ORTVNITI[5 Housing Authority 487 Leff Street Post Office Box 1289 San Luis Obispo CA 93406-1289 of the City of (805) 543-4478 fax (805) 543-4992 Safi Luis Obispo Executive Director-secretary George J.Moylan PROJECT We have completed two similar developments to what is planned at 2005 Johnson Avenue, our Marvin Gardens and Brizzolara Street developments, in the City of San Luis Obispo. One is 24 units and one is 30 units, and both are built on sites considerably smaller than is the current site. Both feature one-bedroom units and both serve a predominantly independent living population. This development is planned to house a more physically limited population with more.supportive services. By asking for the increased density and some deviations from the set-back standards we can achieve both an economy of scales, and an economy in delivering required supportive services and providing for the adaptive reuse of the Hathway Home where it is expected many of the supportive services will be provided. We also feel that the site's location, adjacent to French Hospital and within easy distance of County Hospital and the out-patient clinic of County Mental Health is an ideal location for such a facility and its use should be maximized. The creative use of setbacks, elevators, etc. and adaptive reuse provides us with the opportunity to achieve these goals. George J. Moylan for San Luis Obispo Non-Profit Housing Corporation j3'0 Attachment 4 tecture Construction Project .- PROJECT STATEMENT DEL RIO TERRACE APARTMENTS 2005 JOHNSON AVE. SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA By the SAN LUIS OBISPO NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORP. 4 We are proposing to build bYlaffordable one-bedroom, senior citizen apartments on the approximately 1.2 acre lot at Johnson, Ella and Sierra Way. We are requesting a density bonus, as the entire project will be affordable housing. As part of this project we propose to relocate the existing structure on the site in order to use the building as a part of our new complex. In the current location the structure is at the perimeter of the project, higher in grade elevation than the majority of the site and located within the 60-65 dBA noise contour area, precluding any outdoor use areas around the building. By relocating the building as indicated on the drawings, we can use the building for our community room, manager's office and apartment and create an outdoor gathering space adjacent to the building. We also request a Director's discretionary exception for the rear yard setback of 10', and street yard setbacks of 15'. P O.Box 15339 San Luis Obispo.California 93405 605544-1734 FAX 605544-1207 Contractor License 476665 �. Attachment 5 = = . MEMORANDUM CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO: Cultural Heritage Committee VIA: Michael Draze, Deputy Community Development Directof' �/ FROM: Michael Codron, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: October 28, 2002 SUBJECT: Item #2: ARC 147-02 (2005 Johnson) — Review plans for a 42-unit affordable, senior housing development, including a proposal to relocate the Miller/Hathway home on-site. This project is being forwarded to the CHC because the Miller/Hathway House was previously listed by the CHC as a "threatened building." The proposed project involves relocation and rehabilitation of the building on the project site. The rehabilitation will include building a new foundation for the house, and will include cosmetic improvements, such as new paint. The CHC is being asked to evaluate the project with respect to the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, and to make a recommendation on the project to the Architectural Review Commission. Project Description The San Luis Obispo Non-Profit Housing Corporation is proposing to build a 42-unit affordable, senior citizen housing development on a 1.2 acre site at the corner of Johnson Avenue, Ella Street and Sierra Way. Five new buildings are proposed, with 6 to 12 units each. On-site parking is provided, in compliance with City parking requirements for senior housing projects. The project includes the relocation and rehabilitation of the Miller/Hathway House for use as a community room, manager's office and apartment. The architecture for the proposed construction is largely done in the simple Carpenter/Craftsman style of the Miller/Hathway House. There are some architectural elements of greater detail on the new buildings, including decorative brackets at the exterior walkways and shingle siding details at the gable ends. The new construction would include some very specific architectural details to compliment the Miller/Hathway House, such as structural support columns at the first level walkways, elevator towers that recall the existing water tower, and clerestory windows that match the dormer windows of the house. Historic Background Two reports have been provided by the applicant for consideration by the CHC. The first is a Structural Assessment, prepared by Robert S. Vessely, PE. The report concludes that the house is in reasonably good condition, with the exception of the sagging foundation and the lack of �-a3 n LCIU1 n t ict u D CHC 147-02 2005 Johnson October 28, 2002 maintenance. The report was prepared in November, 2001, and staff recently spoke with Mr. Vessely regarding the proposal to move the building, which is not specifically discussed in the report. Mr. Vessely indicated that he would not have significant structural concerns with the building relocation, except that the existing chimney and water tower may not move well and may need to be reconstructed once the main portion of the house is relocated. The applicant has indicated that a house mover stated the water tower could be moved intact, but the issue has not been evaluated in depth. A second historical report was prepared by Betsy Bertrando. The historical report covers the history of the Miller and Hathway families in San Luis Obispo, and describes how this house and property are connected to the families. Historical Architectural Treatment of the Miller/Hathway House No formal treatment plan has been submitted by the applicant for the existing house. If the CHC supports the proposed relocation, the applicant should be required to return to the CHC with such a plan. At this point, the relocation proposal includes construction of a new foundation for the home in the proposed mid-block location. The water tower would be preserved, repaired, and provided with a new roof. The existing windows would be repaired, and would be replaced with like wood windows if necessary. The roof sheathing on the house would be repaired or replaced, and the existing shingles would be entirely replaced with a similar composition shingle product. The existing chimney is close to falling over on its own accord. A fireplace is not envisioned for the interior of the proposed community room, and the method for replacing the chimney should be discussed in the treatment plan. At this time, the applicant does not believe that it would be feasible to relocate the existing cistern located under the water tower. The CHC should indicate how the cistern should be addressed in the treatment plan. Historical Preservation Program Issues and Secretary of the Interior's Standards No determination has been made at this point regarding the historic significance of the Miller/Hathway House. One of the action alternatives available to the CHC is to determine that the house is a significant historic resource. The CHC is then asked to consider whether or not the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff suggests potential findings for making such a determination. The rehabilitation project will provide for the long-tern preservation of the house. In addition, the extreme vegetation overgrowth that has occurred over the past few decades has somewhat disassociated the house from Johnson Avenue. This may have been intentional because of the change in character that Johnson Avenue has seen over the years with significantly increased traffic. At the time the Miller/Hathway House was built, Johnson Avenue did not extend past the General Hospital site. Action Alternatives The CHC is being asked to make a recommendation to the ARC regarding the overall project, based on one of the following action alternatives. 3-2�-I Attachment 5 CHC 147-02 2005 Johnson October 28, 2002 1. Determine that the project is consistent with the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines because it will provide for the rehabilitation and reuse of the existing house in a manner that will retain its architectural integrity, and recommend approval of the proposed relocation to the Architectural Review Commission with a condition that an Historical/Architectural Treatment Plan return to the CHC for review and approval prior to building permit issuance for the project. 2. Determine that the existing house is a significant historical resource, based on Appendix C of the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the Delineation of Historic Resource Criteria for Building Evaluation and Recommendations. This alternative should be based on findings from the historical reports prepared for the project or other information in the public record. Sample Findings: 1. The house was originally constructed by Jacob "Boots" Henry Miller, a Southern Pacific railroad engineer, who took the first train through from San Luis Obispo to Santa.Barbara in 1901. 2. The house has stayed in the Miller family for at least two generations through the marriage of Helen Miller(daughter of J.H. Miller)to Murray Camden Hathway, and their son Murray Junior, who lived in the house until the recent sale of the property. 3. There is a great deal of local history associated with the Hathway family, and Ella Street (where the Miller/Hathway house is located) is named for Murray Hathway's sister, Ella. 4. The building has had relatively few alterations over the years and has retained sufficient architectural integrity to qualify for inclusion in the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. 3. If the CHC determines that the house is a significant historic resource, then a determination regarding consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation should be considered, as follows: A. The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards because the relocation of the house is necessary for it to function as the focal point and community room for the proposed senior housing development, thereby insuring its long-term preservation and maintenance.. B. The relocation of the house is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards because Johnson Avenue is an arterial street with heavy traffic, and over the years significant vegetation has grown to buffer the house from the street, 3.2� Attachment 5 CHC 147-02 � 2005 Johnson October 28, 2002 thereby disassociating the building from its connection to the Johnson Avenue location. C. The proposal is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards because the project will provide for the preservation of the existing water tower that is attached to the house, which is a feature that actually pre-dates the historic home. 4. The CHC could determine that the project is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, if the Committee believes that the house should not be moved. This alternative should also be based on findings. The determination should be accompanied by a recommendation to the Architectural Review Commission regarding the CHC's preference for the location of the house. The project would be subject to Environmental Review, unless the applicant decided to modify the project description to keep the house in its present location. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Project Plans Attachment 3: Applicant's Project Statements Attachment 4: Structural Assessment of the Miller/Hathway House, Robert S. Vessely, PE Attachment 5: History of the Miller/Hathway Property, Besty Bertrando Included: Complete ARC plan submittal (full size plans) Attachment 5 CHC Minutes, Regular Meeting of October 28, 2002 Page 2 Committee member Carr felt the project would be invasive to the building and that the Brandman study didn't acknowledge that there will be a loss of historic materials as a result of the project. She agrees with Committee member Schrage on a set-aside fund. Committee member McMasters agrees that some form of security needed to be posted to guarantee removal of the, cellular facilities if and when the telecommunications facility lease ends, and to ensure that the installation work is done "seamlessly" and is maintained in good condition. Committee member Whittlesey felt that there is a better alternative than what is proposed. He asked if this installation would accommodate multiple users. Mr: Thomberg said no, it was designed only for Sprint PCS. Another facility was possible, but it would require a separate design and city approval. Chairperson Wheeler felt the project was invasive but didn't appear to be damaging. He was concerned about the performance of different wall materials covering the embedded antennas meeting existing plaster(shrinkage, etc.) He felt this may cause the installation to be visible over time, and the architectural impact could be greater than the Committee expects. On a motion by Chairperson Wheeler, seconded by Committee member McMasters, the Committee voted 6-0 to determine that the proposed project was conditionally compatible with the City of San Luis Obispo's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, provided that the applicant posts financial security, to the approval of the Community Development Director and City Attorney, to guarantee repair and restoration of the building upon termination of the use of the telecommunication facilities. 2. 2005 Johnson Avenue. ARC 147-02. Review proposal to relocate the Miller/Hathway House on-site to accommodate 42 new apartments for low-income seniors; San Luis Non-Profit Housing Corporation, applicant. George Moylan, Executive Director of the City of San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, explained the project. Jeff Dillon, project architect, explained reasons for moving the house—basically due to Johnson Avenue noise and to provide handicapped access. Chairperson Wheeler opened the public hearing. Enrico Bonjo, 2675 Sierra Way, was concerned with the structural integrity of the existing house and questioned whether it could be moved. David Soderberger of the First Baptist Church was concerned with the size and scale of the proposed buildings. He felt the proposed density was inconsistent with the historic house and adjacent buildings. 3 _. ' Attachment 5 CHC Minutes, Regular Meeting of October 28, 2002 Page 3 Dan Carpenter, a neighbor located across Johnson Avenue; supported retaining the house in its existing location. Otherwise, he supported the project. Mary Beth Schroeder supported.keeping the house in its existing location. Enrico Bonjo said he agrees with the First Baptist Church's concerns. Pat Lenchow felt that a traffic signal was needed at the intersection of Ella and Johnson Avenue. She said parking on Sierra Way was already limited and this project would worsen the parking situation. The public hearing was closed. Committee member Crotser supported the project and the house's relocation. Committee member Schrage said he would prefer to see the house remain on the Johnson Avenue frontage. Committee member Can: agrees with Committee member Schrage, given previous concerns with the Pinho House on Marsh Street, she feels this house should remain close to its historic location. She would like to see a 3D view or model of the project to gauge the effect of relocation on the house's visibility from Johnson Avenue. Committee member McMasters supported relocation and rehabilitation as proposed. Chairperson Wheeler was concerned with the lack of historic information in the historic study on the previous house on the property that predated the Hathway house, and on the use of the old water tower which is still standing. He felt it important to have a subsurface archaeological survey done. He was interested in alternatives that would allow the house to remain in its existing location. He Several neighboring property owners presented letters or spoke in opposition to the project's height, scale and density. They were concerned that the 3-story height of the proposed apartment buildings would be out of scale with the historic house and with neighboring houses. The Committee took two actions on this item: A. On a motion by Committee member Crotser, seconded by Committee member Can:, the Committee voted 6-0 to determine that the Miller/Hathway House is a significant historical resource, based on Appendix C of the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and. the following findings: 1. The house has stayed in the Miller family for at least two generations through the marriage of Helen Miller (daughter of J.H. Miller) to Murray Camden Hathway, and their son Murray Junior, who lived in the house until its sale in 2002. 3-� Attachment CHC Minutes, Regular Meeting of October 28,2002 Page 4 2. There is a great deal of local history associated with the Hathway family, and Ella Street (where the Miller/Hathway House is located) is named for Murray Hathway's sister, Ella. 3. The building has had relatively few alterations and has retained sufficient architectural integrity to qualify for inclusion in the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. Moreover, the house is one of the last remaining farmhouses within City limits and in the Johnson area of the City. B. On a motion by Committee member Crotser, seconded by Committee member Schrage, the Committee voted 5-l(Committee member Carr voting no) to determine that the proposed house relocation is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed relocation would allow the house to function as the focal point and community room for the proposed senior housing development,thereby insuring its long- term preservation and maintenance. 2. Johnson Avenue is an arterial street with heavy traffic flow, and over the years significant vegetation has grown to buffer the house from the street, thereby disassociating the house from its visual connection to the Johnson Avenue location. 3. This project will provide for the preservation of the existing water tower that is attached . to the house, a feature that actually predates the historic home. 3. 575 Buchon Street. ARCMI 6-02. Review garage and studio apartment addition to a Contributing historic property in the R-2-H zone; Michael P. Sullivan, applicant. (Continued from the January 2002 CHC meeting.) Tom Martin, architect, and Mike Sullivan, applicant, explained the project and the changes made since the last CHC meeting when this project was reviewed. Chairperson Wheeler opened the public hearing and noted a letter had been received from a neighbor objecting to the project's design and scale. Doug Ryan, spoke at the hearing and explained his concerns. He felt parking was still a problem. Mary Beth Schroeder emphasized the need to preserve historic structures and not bend to economic interests. Committee members felt that the applicant had addressed the Committee's previous concerns with scale and overlook. On a motion by Committee member Schrage, seconded by Committee member Whittlesey, the Committee voted 6-0 to determine that the proposed project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and will not adversely affect the historic, architectural or aesthetic significance of the contributing historic Attachment. E Post Baptist CA OF 2075 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo CA 93401 San Luis Obispo October 28,2002 003-682-0431 File#:147-02 Cultural Heritage Committee City of San Luis Obispo Dear Committee Members, The First Baptist Church of San Luis Obispo appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed project at the comer of Johnson and Ella streets. It is commendable that the Housing Authority is seeking to construct low-income senior housing at this location. There is a tremendous shortage of all types of affordable housing in the City of San Luis Obispo. However,we do have the following concerns regarding this proposed development: 1. The size and scale of this residential development does not fit in with the surrounding scale of houses. Most are one or two story homes. This proposal seeks three story structures and would appear to be out of place with the surrounding community. The scale of this development would be more consistent with that of a downtown structure. 2. The density of the proposed development does not appear to be consistent with the surrounding community. From the preliminary plans that we reviewed, it seems like there are too many units proposed in proportion to the size of the property. 3. The proposed three story structures do not appear to be consistent with the scale of the historic house currently at that location. In summary,we do not believe that any structure in the new development should be over two stones. Again,thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development. Zid rely, Silberbeer— h n of the Board of Ministry Deacons Phone(805)481-7362 3' Attachment 6 CL/vv1 LJ ILI- 1 -�.� :�wtt-<< /�-iii✓' ��..�<�- .y �lur.�C, �u1�' Gt�t.�`f ��'!/ J 3-34 . r - ATTACHMENT 7 Resolution "A" RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A DENSITY BONUS FOR A 40-UNIT, AFFORDABLE SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED ON 2005 JOHNSON AVENUE; APPLICATION NO.ARC 147-02 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on January 7, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering a request for a density bonus, Application No. ARC 147-02, a request to allow development of 40 1-bedroom apartments for low-income senior citizens; and WHEREAS, Chapter 17.90 of the Zoning Regulations entitles the project to a density bonus of 25% above the normal density for the R-2 zone; and WHEREAS, in order to permit the number of dwellings proposed by the Housing Authority for the project site, an additional density bonus of 58% must first be granted by the City Council; WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the R-2 zone because it will provide housing opportunities for low-income senior citizens close to commercial and public services and the project related impacts are consistent with those expected from standard R- 2 projects because the units will be individually occupied and seniors makes fewer trips per day than the general population. 2. The proposed density bonus is consistent with the General Plan because a large portion of land designated for Medium Density residential development in this neighborhood is occupied by a church. The proposed project will have a population density of 33.3 people per acre and will raise the average population density in the neighborhood so that it is consistent with Table 4 of the Land Use Element, which sets 25 people per acre as an appropriate population density for Medium Density residential land. 3. The Cultural Heritage Committee has recommended approval of the project to the Architectural Review Commission because they determined that the proposed apartments were architecturally compatible with the Miller/Hathway House, which will be relocated and rehabilitated as part of the project. 3 -31 Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 Section 2. Approval. The Council does hereby approve a density bonus of 58%, in addition to a 25% density bonus that the applicant is entitled to, for a total density bonus of 83%, subject to the following condition of approval. 1. The project design shall be subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission, which may result in a reduction of the total number of units that can be developed on this site. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 7th day of January, 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: x 'zo cting City ttorne it Trujillo 3 '63 ATTACHMENT 8 1. Resolution `B" RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A DENSITY BONUS FOR A 40-UNIT,AFFORDABLE SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECT LOCATED ON 2005 JOHNSON AVENUE; APPLICATION NO. ARC 147-02 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on January 7, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering a request for a density bonus, Application No. ARC 147-02, a request to allow development of 40 1-bedroom apartments for low-income senior citizens; and WHEREAS, Chapter 17.90 of the Zoning Regulations entitles the project to a density bonus of 25% above the normal density for the R-2 zone; and WHEREAS, in order to permit the number of dwellings proposed by the Housing Authority for the project site, an additional density bonus of 58% must first be granted by the City Council; WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed density bonus is not consistent with the purpose of the R-2 zone because the proposed intensity of development is better suited for one of the City's higher density residential zones. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 7th day of January, 2003. i Attachment 8 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: i Acting City Attomey Gil Trujillo 3-35 Julie O'Connor-City Council Meeting.?Ja•- Pae 1 9_ From: Robert Rosenberg <rosenbergia@webtv.net> To: <joconnor@slocity.org> Date: 1/7/03 11:53AM RECEIVED Subject: City Council Meeting 7 Jan. JAN Q 7 2003 As a veteran of the Second World War and a thirty-year resident of this city, I wish to add my voice in favor of a resolution opposing SLO CITY CLERK unilateral pre-emptive military action against Iraq by the U.S. Robert L. Rosenberg, Ph.D. (History). C.P.S.U. Z�'COUN IL CDD DIR SCAO Z FIN DIR ZACAO Qi FIRE CHIEF jaATTORNEY 2 PW DIR XCLERK/ORIG Z POUCE CHF ❑ DT1�,HEA_Dn�S 2 REC DIR 1�=IL ��'UTIL DIR PIHR DIR RED FILE ME ING AGENDA DATE4& ITEM # S First Baptist Church of San Luis Obispo RECEIVED CITY COUNCIL JAN 0 7 2001 PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 7, 2003 SLO CITY CLERK Dear Friends, First Baptist Church leadership enthusiastically welcomes the Del Rio Terrace Apartments senior housing to the community. First Baptist Church has a heritage of caring for SLO seniors. We are anticipating opportunity to offer free services to these seniors, as we have offered services by founding the Judson Terrace Senior homes on Augusta Avenue. We hope to be the best of neighbors for the Del Rio residents. We feel that the zoned density restrictions for our area are well-advised, and have some concern for the visual impact of 40+ units in closely compacted three story buildings. But primarily we are focused on being good neighbors, and anticipate future opportunities to serve the occupants. In this planning stage, we would also like to suggest that building the Del Rio Apartments (even within the density codes) will strain the traffic concerns on Johnson Avenue. A traffic light at the comer of Johnson and Ella would add to the safety of the community, likely saving lives. We have witnessed several serious accidents near that intersection. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, r, Z COUNC L ,FIN DIR CDD DIRI vid M. Silberbe �CAO Z FIRE CHIEF I • ETA l- Z ATTORNEY e'P I DIR ai an of Dea oard j� CLERWORI(3 2(POLICE CHF ❑ D HEADS REC DIR 0 UTIL DIR Mr 2r HR DIR Thoma . Mom Senior Pastor RED FILE MEETING AGENDA - DmE_4'a tTEl�fi#� 3 "Rooted and Growing in Christ" 2075 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 543-0945 Fax (805) 543-5091