The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/01/2003, PH2 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (GP/R/ER 145-01) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE counat D3 j agenda RepoRt CITY OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director t-3,7'h Prepared By: Lynn M. Azevedo, Associate Planner 6D F-;" t�A SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (GP/R/ER 145-01) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING OF 1043/1045 FOOTHILL BLVD. FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE AND CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE ASSOCIATED USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A HOSPITAL EXPANSION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PARKING GARAGE FOR SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL; 1010 MURRAY STREET; TENET CALIFORNIA HEALTH SYSTEMS, APPLICANT. CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Approve a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element Map to change the land use designation from High Density Residential to Office and approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2. Introduce an Ordinance changing the zoning on the subject property from High Density Residential (R-4) to Office (0); and 3. Approve a resolution denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve Use Permit 145-01 based on findings and subject to conditions and mitigation measures. DISCUSSION Background Tenet California Healthcare Systems proposes to expand Sierra Vista Hospital which would include an addition to the hospital, construction of a parking garage and central plant for mechanical equipment, and associated changes to surface parking and circulation. A general plan map amendment, rezone, use permit, architectural review, lot line adjustment, and environmental review is required in order to accomplish the proposed expansion plans. The Planning Commission considered the project entitlements at their December 4, 2002 meeting and recommended Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification. Its action on the Lot Line Adjustment and Use Permit applications was final unless appealed. An appeal of the Use Permit was filed by Jim Lopes, which now raises this issue to the Council level. The Architectural Review Commission has preliminarily reviewed the project with respect to their scope of authority and provided direction to the project designers. The project will have to C „r' Council Agenda Report GP/R/ER/U 145-01 (Sierra Vista Hospital Expansion) Page 2 return to the ARC should the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications be approved and once final design plans are completed. Data Summary Address: 1010 Murray Street (also 1043 and 1045 Foothill Blvd.) Applicant: Tenet California Health Systems Representative: RRM Design Group (Eric Justesen, John Knight) Existing Zoning: R-4 Existing General Plan: High Density Residential Environmental status: Mitigated Negative Declaration Recommended Site description The hospital property is comprised of several lots with a total area of approximately 11 acres, extending from Murray Street to Foothill Boulevard and from Casa Street to Stenner Creek/Santa Rosa Street. Surrounding uses include houses, apartments, and offices.. Proiect Description The applicant has applied for the following entitlements: 1. General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to change the land use designation of the parcel at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard from High-Density Residential (R-4) to Office; 2. Use permit to allow non-residential development (a hospital addition and multi-level parking garage) in the Office zone and to allow a 35-foot tall parking structure where 25 feet would otherwise be the maximum allowed height; 3. Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure lot boundaries; and 4. Architectural review of the proposed hospital and new parking garage with associated changes to surface parking layout and landscaping. Tenet is proposing an 85,000 square-foot, three-story addition to the existing hospital structure to accommodate approximately 24 additional beds and expanded cardiac care services. To address the existing and anticipated parking demand, a parking garage is proposed at the comer of Casa Street and Foothill Boulevard with roughly 400 parking spaces. A central plant is proposed adjacent to the garage to house new mechanical equipment associated with hospital operations. Changes are also proposed to the on-site surface parking, circulation, and landscaping. Construction of the parking garage and central plant requires redesignation/rezoning of the property known as 1043/1045 Foothill Boulevard from "High Density Residential' to "Office" and demolition of three residential structures, containing a total of 4 dwellings and one small office structure. Demolition of the church, formerly at 55 Casa Street, has already been completed consistent with the conditions of ARC 146-01. The former church site serves as Cas Council Agenda Report GP/R/ER/U 145-01 (Sierra Vista Hospital Expansion) Page.3 temporary surface parking for the hospital campus. The hospital's master plan includes a future medical office building of approximately 40,000 to 45,000 square feet. The medical office building is not part of this project, although it was taken into consideration in overall site planning and is specifically addressed in the project's traffic study. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission initially considered these applications at its meeting of April 24, 2002, and continued the project with direction provided. At the December 4, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, staff and the applicant addressed all of the Commission's previous questions and concerns. There have been several areas of concern for the Commission including General Plan consistency, loss of housing and housing potential, compensation for housing, utility undergrounding, and adequacy of the proposed parking scheme (overparked or underparked). These issues are thoroughly addressed in the December 4, 2002 Planning Commission staff report and associated exhibits attached hereto (Attachment 8). General Plan Consistency In short, the Commission found that the proposed change to the Land Use Element and Zoning maps is consistent with General Plan policies related to the location of medical facilities and housing, provided that adequate mitigation for the loss of housing is provided. Their recommendation was based on a balanced review of General Plan Policies that both encourage the preservation of housing as well as the need for the community to have medical facilities capable of providing service to our citizens. Please refer to pages 9 and 10 of the December 4, 2002 Planning Commission staff report and pages 2-6 of the April 24, 2002 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 9) fora complete discussion on General Plan consistency. ParkinglAccess/Traffic A traffic study and parking analysis were prepared for the "master plan" of the Siena Vista campus. The conclusion is that 13 "Transportation" mitigation measures are proposed which include relocation of the Murray Street entrance further from the intersection with Santa Rosa Street (Initial Study Transportation mitigation measure #4), improvements at the Casa Street/Foothill Boulevard intersection to allow creation of a left and right turning lane onto Foothill (Initial Study Transportation mitigation measure #1), and the possible need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Foothill Blvd., and Casa. Street (Initial Study Transportation mitigation measures #8,#9, #10, #11). With respect to parking, there has been much discussion about the serious lack of parking at the current facility and whether the proposed number of parking spaces that would result from implementation of the master plan would create an "overparked" or "underparked" situation. The dilemma is that there is not a tried and true formula for determining appropriate hospital Council Agenda Report GP/R/ER/U 145-01 (Sierra Vista Hospital Expansion) Page 4 parking, including the City's ordinance requirements. A very detailed parking analysis was prepared by RRM Design Group which is found within the December 2002 Planning Commission staff report. Their `real-life" analysis seems logical and supports the proposed number of parking spaces. Environmental Review The environmental initial study (Attachment No 10) identifies several potentially significant impacts that require mitigation. The most significant issues are aesthetics, cultural resources, land use policy consistency, and traffic. Less significant issues are related to air quality, biology, energy conservation, geology/soils, hydrology, noise, and utilities. Mitigation is recommended to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation is incorporated into the recommended Resolution and Ordinance (Attachment 12 and 13)• Use Permit Appeal The purpose for the Use Permit application is to allow non-residential development (a hospital addition and multi-level parking garage) in the Office zone and to allow a 35-foot tall parking structure where 25 feet would otherwise be the maximum allowed height. The parking structure is proposed for the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Casa Street. The Letter of Appeal filed by James Lopes (Attachment 11) cites concerns with the location of the parking structure and the loss of high-density residential land. These same concerns were made part of the public record at the December Commission meeting via Mr. Lopes' letter of December 3, 2002 (attached to meeting minutes—Attachment 7). The Planning Commission determined that the proposed change in land use designation for property at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard is consistent with General Plan polices related to the location of medical facilities, retention of existing businesses, and the City's desire to serve as a hub for medical services. The Commission also found that adjusting the land use boundary to reduce land designated as residential is appropriate in this case because a significant, long- term citywide need for medical services outweighs the preference to retain residential capacity at the affected location. The expansion of hospital services is best accommodated at the proposed location. With respect to the proposed location .for the parking structure, the applicant's representative explained how buildout of the 11-acre hospital campus limits the location of a suitably-sized parking structure. The Commission found that the architectural review process will ensure that the location, orientation, height, and mass of the new structures will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas, and that a maximum height of 35 feet for the parking garage is reasonably necessary in this case to accommodate adequate parking for existing uses on site and for the proposed 85,000 square foot addition to the hospital. In addition, the Commission expressed concern that the idea of"liner offices or residential" on the ground floor of the parking garage would reduce the number of spaces that are needed for the existing and expanded hospital campus. Council Agenda Report GP/R/ER/U 145-01 (Sierra Vista Hospital Expansion) Page 5 CONCURRENCES The undergrounding of overhead utilities along Foothill Blvd., and Casa and Murray Streets was an issue at one point. Representatives for Sierra Vista met with City staff on several occasions to discuss this issue and on October 29, 2002, Public Works Director Michael McCluskey and Sierra Vista representatives came to an agreement. This agreement includes the following: Sierra Vista will install underground conduit for all above-ground wires with necessary pull boxes for (1) the frontage along Foothill beginning at the utility pole next to the Creek to the corner of Casa Street and(2) the frontage of Casa Street from the corner of Foothill Blvd. to the utility pole on the south side of Deseret. The Public Works Department finds that the placement of conduits at this time will allow for easier, quicker, and less expensive undergrounding of overhead wires in the future. Other Department comments are incorporated into recommended mitigation and attached to the initial study. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item with direction regarding additional information needed. 2. Deny the project(General Plan Amendment/Rezone/Use Permit) based on findings. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Aerial View of existing conditions 3. Conceptual site plan 4. Reduced elevations of hospital addition 5. Reduced elevations of parking garage 6. Planning Commission Resolution of Approval 7. Planning Commission Minutes from 12/04/02 meeting 8. December 4, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report for GPA/R/UP/LLA/ER 145-01 9. April 24, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report for GPA/R/UP/LLA/ER 145-01 10. Initial Study 11. Letter of Appeal of Use Permit from James Lopes dated 12/16/02 12. Draft Council Resolution for Approval of General Plan Amendment 13. Draft Ordinance approving the Zone Reclassification 14. Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Commission's approval of Use Permit U 145-01 15. Draft Council Resolution for Denial of project G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLANUazevedo\CC\GP 145-01(SV)CC Report.doc Full-size map prints have been provided to the City Council and are available for review at the City Clerk's Office. A ♦D 1.1•yr.i �� ® _ Now, MIR ® �s .:� �■ ago MAP M MIR oil • 111 111 IIIIIIILI�. '�� 1!�l11 II�'lllll�ll �.� .111■■■■■■�� ,�� . Sam _ PA jL 2W tUl" .......... tA 0^e77 WWI 41, t IMM'i VIA —�,,NIM E I.............. E WA -------------- ... 0311% Al A 5 I dA P?�7 I Pl 1 4l 4 itil �1 �. Ohl un urrti i�y�r ��r��`•�Ts'`�1 RIF Him Rf map no lag uo�n IISIERRA VISTA MEDICAL CENTER co C014CEPTTJAL RRM DESIGN GROUP ckvvsl — SITE PLAN . 1 j . s � ILI MWINNIMEMEM ! = IIN MOIlEMItiii■ !��■11■lil �� ®1■II■111 - iilllhllllllll Mail i7iii11,111i :� IIIlmlllhllll © ..11I��illlll":�I�i © o �'llllbllllsllll 1�11�111111111111 .:� ,; � ,'�11'I■■I■I -_; ';.�i1131111�1111 ° ,I■�I■ .�Ilallyllll I��I��I■ i■iii�iii■ii■I■i �•�I IJI IIII I - f . .L,II,I'I `iFtf i^�`ILSfIBI:'JG-©Gdllllllll I '� D II 2a��lllllllllll�, .�III>III�III 1111111111111��I1�I M nl MII fel I2MM IIIIIIII ■ ■'�I�I;III s aul.�i v_IsaaluWll11al II'lllllw�lllhllllllllll l■Iv7%MINIM III :--llallllelllllpllllllllll I■I -;r�_�� INI�IIII�I■ 1111111=11111.11111111111■I ,,.•I� 111111�I■I is lien�:,..L.IRIII�lllllllllllllllllllll■I � 2ai II�IIII■I 1��■ y go 11111111111111111111111111■I ��••�o � IIIIIII�I r" " l��ll®I��11�1��11�1� its god■ _ � sit;��I��IVllll!II,I�! •�..,..IJIIIIIIIIII■1 ilk NINE ] Illllllllllllllllll : ��I�IIIIIIII■I � ' � a , 'II,IIIIIJIIIIIIII �'�� ;T;f��llllllllllll■I II�IIIIhIIIIICIIII_ q y ��_�a, lJc l z'., ' Illlllllllgl■I II �Q rs � I - IIIIIIIIIII 11■1 ... 1 111 ,: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _� �y I�iisl.ai�ii■�■i lIIl1III11I11111I1111111�■I -1 �111::ej � eaw.�..a�llllll�■ -'1� ....��I.�. -111 -fill f 'r try Is111�='I 1;�>cm____=--_=111111 —• — —I I 1 �Is� tn r''=8111=Illlallll �: I�III_I 1 UI� �II m�u=tii�AllIj�all'�1�1 �_ III:■1 =111=1111=IIII r'' 4 11 a I�-._IIII=__IIII �'-'I �-1111■1 _ - � �� .I. iII�E1t11�r I .—=�I�_►\�I� ��I� �mlY15�IS75'JI� J I� WN __I �I��I\7•�I�1 IIIM 1_ -:J uu T7i, 1 - RININO 311)(41A I� I t' 111IUIIII 1 �� _ �� niwi■ui■ [��y}9I`I -IIS.((- �:��glg@@1��01®�® 111111111111 i.I.icQ�m�ggQmQ��gqepapl1m I■I■��I■■■I■ iHlllnlll I•G- .a mnammaa (3 1 �G1gMiG0®�� III.II m��N.�1:14IGyP =9CNIL•L21A 111 ESE: • _ 11 1 ...1_..1_1. ee_=:__o.:: mQ=�=�= 1111111 MIN 1v1 I1 swill$ 1 ��1111111 y I.1 n.1-11- HERR II'IIS �. •-.1-a.1-1.rC ■■u..l-f■■■■■I11.1=11a 1■S. 1111111 ■ III1111111 ��IIIIII� elllul I1111111 •�._,-1.1. 1111111 r ' �11 I�1111111 1��11�'II! 6111111111111 •�.._•I.._1. • Ilm�lll II III IIII - 1.aQmmOam ' �.. . c ORION � 'I III III I Nil I '1 it IF,� 'AJ60m6 -- --- 'U.El IIORI I��IIIII amLamma•c � 0II1@ S`GE�1112� ..I---- 1111111 ��I�'I�II� IIIIIIIIIIII coo c� ;OSRSSRE eoo;e�e,o�.;�c., C! ODOA�aI0.101��01 I r 'r 1 II71, II■■, ..� � � �• ? Illi!:r � m 1 • • 1 1�II�1 i I Attachment 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5353-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAPS FROM HIGH- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE FOR PROPERTY AT 1043 AND 1045 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD,APPROVE A USE PERMIT ALLOWING NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN OFFICE ZONE (HOSPITAL ADDITION AND PARKING GARAGE) AND A MAXIMUM GARAGE HEIGHT OF 35 FEET AS PART OF SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL'S MASTER PLAN, AND APPROVE THE ASSOCIATED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (GP/R, A, LLA, ER 145-01) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 24, 2002 and December 4, 2002, for the purpose of considering Application GP/R/U/LLA/ER 145-01, a proposed General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Use Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Sierra Vista Hospital; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: General Plan Map Amendment 1. The proposed change in land use designation for property at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard, as shown on Exhibit A, is consistent with General Plan polices related to the location of medical facilities, retention of existing businesses, and the City's desire to serve as a hub for medical services. 2. Adjusting the land use boundary to reduce land designated as residential is appropriate in this case because a significant, long-tern citywide need for medical services outweighs the preference to retain residential capacity at the affected location. The expansion of hospital services are best accommodated at the proposed location. Resolution No. 5353-02 GP/R, U and ER 145-01 Attachment 6 Page 2 Zoning Map Amendment 3. Amending the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning for property at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard from High-Density Residential to Office, as shown on Exhibit B, is the appropriate means of implementing the amendment to the Land Use Element Map initiated with application GP/R 145-01, and will ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Use Permit 4. The architectural review process will ensure that the location, orientation, height, and mass of the new structures will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas. 5. With implementation of recommended traffic mitigation measures identified in Exhibit C, the project's location and access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local streets in nearby residential neighborhoods. 6. The architectural review process will ensure that the project will include landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation from sites in nearby residential areas. 7. The proposed expansion of medical services is consistent with General Plan policies and appropriate at this location since the project site is already developed with a hospital and related medical services occupy most of the offices in the vicinity. 8. A maximum height of 35 feet for the parking garage, where 25 feet would otherwise be the maximum height allowed, is reasonably necessary in this case to accommodate adequate parking for existing uses on site and for the proposed 85,000 square foot addition to the hospital. Lot Line Adjustment 9. As conditioned, the lot line adjustment is consistent with the City's zoning ordinance, building code, and subdivision regulations, and with the State Subdivision Map Act. Environmental Review 10. An environmental initial study was prepared for the proposed amendments as described in the application file ER 145-01. The Director issued a mitigated negative declaration. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. Section 2. Action General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment 1. The Planning Commission is recommending Council approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element Map and to the Official Zoning Map as shown in Exhibits A and B respectively. a , Resolution No. 5353-02 GP/R,U and ER 145-01 AttdGIlfT7Pf1t 6 Page 3 Lot Line Adjustment 2. The Planning Commission hereby approves the proposed lot line adjustment (LLA 145-01), subject to the following conditions. a. The lot line adjustment shall be finalized with either parcel map or a lot line adjustment agreement. If the agreement is pursued, the applicant shall submit a 'Declaration of Lot Line Adjustment", along with recording and processing fees, and an 8-1/2 x 11 map exhibit suitable for recording, to the City Engineer for review, approval and recordation, based on samples available in the Community Development Department. b. The map exhibit that is recorded with the lot line adjustment agreement shall accurately show all easements, which affect each lot (utility, parking, common driveway, drainage, etc.). c. Each parcel shall be served with separate utilities. If a utility line crosses one parcel to serve another, a common utilities easement and maintenance agreement shall be recorded simultaneously with finalization of the lot line adjustment. The applicant shall clarify the location of utilities through each parcel prior to finalizing the lot line adjustment. d. The owner shall abandon any water and sewer services that are not currently being used, as well as those that will be abandoned with the redevelopment of the site to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department Director. 3. The lot line adjustment action shall not take effect until the City Council amends the General Plan and Zoning, pursuant to GP/R 145-01. Use Permit 4. The use permit action shall not take effect until the City Council amends the General Plan and Zoning, pursuant to GP/R 145-01. 5. The Planning Commission hereby approves the use permit to allow: 1) nonresidential development in the Office zone as proposed with application GP/R/U/LLA/ER 145-01, specifically an 85,000 square foot addition to the hospital, a 400 (+/-) car parking garage, and a central mechanical plant; and 2) a maximum height of 35 feet for the parking structure where 25 feet is the maximum height otherwise allowed, subject to the following conditions: Conditions: 1. All recommended environmental mitigation shall be incorporated into the project and applicant shall sign a revised "Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures" agreement prior to Council consideration of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change request. 2. Use permit approval shall be contingent upon project review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. 3. The location, orientation, height, and mass of the new structures shall not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas to the satisfaction of the Architectural review Resolution No.5353-02 GP/R, U and ER 145-01 Attachment 6 Page 4 Commission. 4. The project shall include landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation from sites in nearby residential areas to the satisfaction of the Architectural review Commission. 5. Sierra Vista will install underground conduit for all above-ground wires with necessary pull boxes for (1) the frontage along Foothill beginning at the utility pole next to the Creek to the comer of Casa Street and (2) the frontage of Casa Street from the corner of Foothill Blvd. to the utility pole on the south side of Deseret. 6. The applicant shall install a new street light along Foothill Boulevard to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 7. All conditions of the resolution approving the final abandonment of Deseret Place shall be met to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to City issuance of any grading or building permits for this project. Environmental Determination 6. The Planning Commission hereby approves Mitigated Negative Declaration 145-01 and incorporation of the mitigation measures and monitoring program as outlined in Exhibit C, into the project. The vote to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change request was made as follows: On motion by Commissioner Aiken, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Aiken, Christianson, Cooper, Chairwoman Loh NOES: Commissioner Osborne REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Boswell, Caruso The vote to approve Use Permit and Lot Line Adjustment 145-01 and ER 145-01 (Mitigated Negative Declaration) was made as follows: On motion by Commissioner Aiken, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Aiken, Christianson, Cooper, Chairwoman Loh NOES: Commissioner Osborne REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Boswell, Caruso Resolution No. 5353-02 GP/R,U and ER 145-01 Attachment 6 Page 5 The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 4`h day of December, 2002. onaldisenand Planning Commission Secretary y�;yC . . gip J,y • �`;; h.'2, ",. r 1�,l �v�� S j.'� 'M T ,.�l'•'J-'r 1�'"' �L{^,�. ttipbw_..>> �`� a+^�'E�`"^•lY� f� � .1�" l � ( , {�Ka },b t. �_1�rM. �°��-y.�� h��.�d��itii��^n"k, �i�h � ri IL ] � `j �,i��►�c" �u s]`i Kc� r Y'�\s Y�`��-'tT ttr•fid;r�f �v��.�"�"l4 1 Ja � J�r yam:; rir.' R;t M NEW r i\ L rte, 4 FEWt v r• r :i r �r SS t -y 2 , J 2 S x1 � rip t y � } tr r• s� L t..( �. '� • Y. •r 17 off �a�ll@'I)Q�y�� '. Ea`�Sl� ' �• � tJW l.'y • rJ.��.: 4 M .� mss. �. �� y r O'; - ':\: �®��, , MCA: M[� t`:':-�.'. �:•�•t�:i- .:ate d' .r i Attachment 6 EXHIBIT C ER 145-01 Sierra Vista Hospital Master Plan REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS ALL REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING SHALL BE CLEARLY NOTED ON CONSTRUCTION PLANS. AESTHETICS 1. Sierra Vista will install underground conduit for all above-ground wires with necessary pull boxes for (1) the frontage along Foothill beginning at the utility pole next to the Creek to the corner of Casa Street and (2) the frontage of Casa Street from the corner of Foothill Blvd. to the utility pole on the south side of Deseret. 2. Submit a revised circulation and parking plan which reduces the number of trees to be removed to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 3. Provide a visual simulation of the hospital addition and the parking garage to assist the Architectural Review Commission in their evaluation of views of the project from Santa Rosa, Murray, and Casa Streets and from Foothill Boulevard. 4. Design modifications and additions to the hospital building to provide architectural continuity among the older and newer components of the building to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 5. To screen and soften views of the parking garage and the parking lot along Murray Street, use any combination of mounding (minimum of 3 feet in height), walls, raised planters and dense plantings of shrubs and trees to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 6. Use sodium lights in the parking structure. Project lighting and photometrics shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission with the objective of not creating a substantial new source of lighting or glare. All new light sources proposed with this project shall be shielded from off-site views, especially in the vicinity of the proposed garage. 7. Design the parking garage to be compatible with nearby residential structures and uses and to be pedestrian friendly at the street level to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 8. Screen outdoor and roof-mounted mechanical equipment from on-site and off-site views to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. � l� EXHIBITC Attachment 6 ER 145-01 Required Mitigatiot. -A Monitoring Programs Page 2 of 10 Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall clarify how undergrounding will be accomplished; show how the proposed number of tree removals has been reduced; include a visual simulation of the completed project; provide for screening of the parking areas; provide for screening of mechanical equipment; include details of proposed exterior light fixtures and the associated photometrics; include design elements that are compatible with nearby residential and pedestrian areas and that provide a level of architectural continuity between existing and new structures on the hospital site. Building plans shall be insubstantial compliance with plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission. AIR QUALITY Construction impacts 1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. 2. All dirt stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed. 3. Landscaping shall be installed within 30 days following completion of any soil disturbing activities. 4. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. 5. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. 6. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 7. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 8. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. 9. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. 10. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible. EXH 1B[T C ER 145-01 Required Mitigatio,. and Monitoring Programs Attachment 6 Page 3 of 10 11. Use catalytic soot filters on the two (2) pieces of diesel equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Where the catalytic soot filters are determined to be unsuitable, install and use an oxidation catalyst. Suitability is to be determined by an independent California Licensed Mechanical Engineer who will submit for District approval .a Suitability Report identifying and explaining the particular constraints to using the preferred catalytic soot filter. This information shall be included in the contractor bid package to ensure these measures get incorporated into the project. Monitoring Program,. These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and building plans. The applicant shall present evidence of a plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the City. The applicant shall provide the City with the name and telephone number of the person responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. Operational and Transportation related Impacts 1. Since the project is located on an established transit route, a transit turnout and a shelter shall be constructed with direct pedestrian access to and from the facility. 2. Provide on-site bicycle parking for both short- and long-term use. The location of such bicycle parking shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. 3. Provide on-site eating, refrigeration and food vending facilities to reduce lunchtime trips. 4. Provide preferential carpool parking. 5. Provide shower and locker facilities to encourage employees to bike and/or walk to work, typically one shower and three lockers for every 25 employees. 6. Provide incentives to employees to carpool/vanpool or take public transportation. The particulars of subsidizing public transportation costs for employees shall be worked out with the City's Transit Manager. Monitoring Program: Provide details of items 1 through 5 on the plans submitted for architectural review. Site grading and building plans shall be in substantial compliance with plans approved by the ARC. The applicant shall submit copies of incentives offered to employees for carpooling and using public transportation to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any City grading or building permits for the project. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Project grading and construction shall not encroach into the creek setback area as required by City Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.025, except as permitted by the Architectural Review Commission to allow removal of existing encroachments and to construct the accessway near the main entrance. EXHIBITc Attachment 6 ERR145-145-01 Required Mitigatik .d Monitoring Programs J Page 4 of 10 2. Trees identified by the Architectural Review Commission to be preserved shall be clearly marked on grading and construction plans. The applicant shall submit a tree preservation agreement for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The agreement shall be secured by a bond in the amount determined by the City Arborist. Monitoring Program: a) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall mark the edge of grading with rigid fencing to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify the City when such fencing is in place and to schedule an inspection. b)Tree preservation agreement. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation For Archaeological Site CA-SLO-44 1 A.Archaeological testing determined that the archaeological site located on the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center property, CA-SLO-44; covers about 336 square meters. It is recommended that mitigation excavations recover a 10% sample of the archaeological site, since unavoidable impacts from the development will destroy this cultural resource. A 10% sample of scientifically excavated material would include 33.6 square meters extending to the depth of the site. A report will describe the scientific results of this mitigation work. 1 B.The mitigation excavation units shall be located in the lawn areas most suitable for excavation at 1045 Foothill Blvd. and the lawn at the corner of Casa Street and Foothill Blvd. I C.Demolition of the house at 1045 Foothill Blvd., the orthodontist's office on Casa Street and the Robinson house at the corner or Casa Street and Foothill Blvd. cannot be done until archaeological mitigation excavations are completed. 1D.Removal of trees in the vicinity of archaeological site CA-SLO-44 cannot be done until archaeological mitigation excavations are completed. 1 E.All grading and mechanical excavation of native soils that contain materials from archaeological site CA-SLO-44 must be monitored by archaeological and Native American monitors until culturally sterile sub-soils are reached. IF. All excavated soils from site CA-SLO-44 must be transported to a location approved by the city and the project archaeologist. A supplemental archaeological site record form will be produced to document the re-deposition of these archaeological soils. Mitigation For Archaeological Site CA-SLO-1738/H 2A.Further sub-surface testing shall be done at the northern portion of archaeological site CA- SLO-1738/H on the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center property. This testing will produce a report with planning recommendations for the protection of the cultural resource. EXHIBIT C ER 145-01 Required Mitigatii .d Monitoring Programs Attachment 6 Page 5 of 10 2B.Design of the Medical Office Building shall include measures to protect the intact portion of site CA-SLO-173 8/H if possible pending the results of additional sub-surface testing. Project plans for this building shall be reviewed by the project archaeologist with mitigation recommendations. 2C.All construction activity such as grading or excavation for utilities in the vicinity of site CA- SLO-1738/11 shall be monitored by an archaeologist and Native American. 2D.In the event that significant cultural materials from site CA-SLO-1738/H are discovered during monitoring, provisions must be made for their recovery as specified in the City Of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center Expansion Archaeological Monitoring 3A.Many areas of the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center Expansion require archaeological monitoring due to the potential for cultural resources in intact or disturbed contexts across the property. Impacts include but are not limited to grading, excavation, drainage improvements, landscaping, underground utility trenching, removal of parking lots and fill soils and related activities. As construction schedules are determined, the developer and contractors shall provide scheduling and identify areas where impacts will occur for review by the project archaeologist. The project archaeologist will then determine whether monitoring is required. Not all areas will require continuous monitoring. 3B.Provisions shall be made for the project archaeologist to review the final draft of project plans and any changes in the development that may occur prior to building permit submittal. These reviews will identify any potential effects to heritage resources. 3C.Demolition of the former Mormon Church requires archaeological and Native American monitoring until all native soils are removed or impacted by demolition due to its proximity within ten meters of site CA-SLO-44. Testing adjacent to the church building yielded negative results. No further heritage studies or testing are required for this demolition to proceed. 3D.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all areas where encroachment of the creek setback will occur. 3E.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor removal of the parking lot at 55 Casa Street(former Mormon Church). 3F. An archaeologist and Native American will monitor changes to the hospital entrance area and parking areas near Murray Street. 3G.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all excavation and grading in the parking lot area between the existing hospital and Stenner Creek. r� EXHIBIT C ER 145-01 Required Mitigatii .d Monitoring Programs ri"%Ctc3Ci4 ":f 1QiZt Page 6 of 10 3H.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all excavations and related impacts in the vicinity of Deseret Place. 3I. An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all underground utility work including but not limited to water, sewer,gas lines, storm drains and electric cables. 3J. An archaeologist and Native American will monitor excavations and grading for the Cardiac Institute building. 3K.An archaeologist will review all tree removal plans and determine whether monitoring is required. If required, an archaeologist and Native American will monitor this work. 3L.An archaeologist will review all landscaping improvement plans to determine whether monitoring is required. 3M.Archaeological monitoring will include provisions for evaluation of cultural resources discovered during construction as set forth in the City Of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. 3N.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor removal of the Washingtonian palms at 55 Casa Street since this area lies within fifty meter of a known archaeological site boundary. Monitoring Program: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation and monitoring shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. The applicant shall submit evidence of compliance with the monitoring program prescribed by Thor Conway, project archaeologist, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. ENERGY RESOURCES Energy Efficiency Measures 1. Increase energy efficiency at least 20% beyond Title 24 requirements. 2. Plant shade tree along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. 3. Plant shade tree in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. 4. Use double-paned, low E windows. 5. Use energy-efficient lighting; heating, ventilation, air conditioning and cooling; water heating; and wall and ceiling insulation. 6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall indicate what energy efficiency measures will be incorporated into the project design. EXHIBIT C - ER 145-01 Required MitigatiL __..,ld Monitoring Programs Attachment 6 Page 7 of 10 Monitoring Program: Prior to City issuance of any grading or building permit for any phase of the project, the applicant shall submit a report from a qualified energy consultant or design professional which details how the project design for the addition to the hospital, will exceed Title 24 energy requirements by at least 20% to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution Control District. GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 1. Construction documents shall be in accordance with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation reports (project number.1-0649) prepared by GSI Soils Inc. Monitoring Program: Prior to issuance of a City grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide the Chief Building Official with evidence that a qualified geotechnical engineering firm has been retained to monitor site preparation and construction as recommended in the geotechnical investigation reports (project number 1-0649) prepared by GSI Soils Inc. HYDROLOGY 1. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed in the new garage and at each on-site drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek through the storm water system. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to see that the such devices are regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. Monitoring Program; Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be clearly shown on plans submitted for architectural review and on construction documents. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. The applicant shall provide for replacement housing in a form acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council to offset the loss of housing that will occur as a result of this project. Monitoring Program: Prior to issuance of any City permit for this project, the applicant shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. NOISE 1. All on-site generators shall be contained within an engineered enclosure with adequate intake and exhaust silencers to ensure compliance with City policies and standards for noise exposure. EXHIBIT C ER 145-01 Required Mitigatic d Monitoring Programs Attachment 6 Page 8 of 10 2. All outdoor mechanical equipment shall be screened with a solid barrier or other device such as acoustical louvers to reduce noise levels in compliance with City policies and standards for noise exposure. 3. All exterior mechanical equipment proposed as part of this project shall be selected, configured, located, and housed in such a way as to ensure compliance with City policies and standards for noise exposure. 4. Construction activity shall comply with the City's noise ordinance in terms of noise levels and times of construction. Monitoring Program: Prior to City issuance of any application for grading or building, the applicant shall submit a report prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer which analyzes project compliance with required noise mitigation. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a qualified acoustical engineer shall field verify that equipment as installed complies with City polices and standards for noise exposure. TRANSPORTATION 1. The project shall include restriping Casa Street to remove existing parking and create a left and right turning lane onto Foothill. 2. The applicant shall provide subsidized public transit for employees to the satisfaction of the City Transit Manager for a minimum period of 5 years. 3. Bike lockers, bike racks, and designated shower facilities shall be shown on plans submitted to the City and to the State for a building permit to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. The project shall include relocation of Murray Street entrance further from the intersection with Santa Rosa Street. 5. Since the project is located on an established transit route, a transit turnout and new shelter are necessary. Direct pedestrian access to and from the shelter facility shall be constructed by the applicant. The shelter must meet City standards(to the satisfaction of the transit manager) and shall be delivered to the City' s Corporation Yard. The shelter and transit turnout will be installed by the City as part of the Foothill Bridge project. 6. The applicant shall dedicate necessary right of way (or an easement) along Foothill Boulevard for the new bus turnout, including an easement for the transit shelter, prior to issuance of any City building or grading permits, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 7. The applicant's traffic engineer shall work with Caltrans and the City of San Luis Obispo to improve signal operations at the Murray / Santa Rosa (Hwy 1) intersection. This may �r EXHIBIT C ER 145-01 Required Mitigati. .nd Monitoring Programs Attachment 6 Page 9 of 10 include a split phase operation to improve westbound egress from the Murray onto Santa Rosa. 8. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City and shall post a "Letter of Credit" or other cash equivalent surety to guarantee design and construction of a traffic signal and signal interconnect(s) at the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and Casa Street. 9. The agreement shall be effective for three (3) years after completion of the proposed Sierra Vista Hospital addition and shall include the following requirements: 10. The owner/applicant shall provide periodic monitoring of the intersection and/or nearby traffic operations, to determine the possible need for a traffic signal, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 11. The monitoring and resultant reports shall be prepared by the owner/applicant's traffic engineer and delivered to the Public Works Director. If it is determined that a traffic signal is necessary to mitigate traffic conflicts and operations, as determined by the Public Works Director, the owner/applicant shall pursue said construction within six (6) months of written notice by the Public Works Director. 13. The applicant shall prepare, submit to the Public Works Director for approval, and implement a Parking Demand Reduction (PDR) program applicable during Phase 1 of the project (Stages A and B) and during Phase 2 (Stage Q. The goal of the program is the reduce employee and patron demand for parking spaces by providing alternative management strategies (for employees) and access means (e.g. van pools, organized car pools, transit passes, and financial inducements that support alternative modes) for employees and patrons during times on-site parking is limited during construction. Monitoring Program: Prior to issuance of any City building or grading permits; the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Director for review and approval: • a copy of the parking demand management plan for use during construction; • an agreement regarding the Casa/Foothill signal; and • documents granting necessary dedication and easements for the bus turnout and shelter. Required physical improvements shall be shown on the plans for architectural review and project grading and construction and shall be installed prior to City issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the garage. SOLID WASTE 1. A recycling plan for demolition and construction activity shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to start of construction or issuance of any City demolition, building, or,grading permits a-� EXHIBIT C ER 145-01 Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs Attachment 6 Page 10 of 10 Monitoring Program: The applicant shall provide evidence of compliance to the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. SAN LUIS OPBISPO Attachment 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 4, 2002 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. on Wednesday, December 4, 2002; in the Council Hearing Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. Present: Commissioners Carlyn Christianson, Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Orval Osborne, and Chairwoman Alice Loh. Absent: Commissioners Michael Boswell and James Caruso. Staff: Associate Planners Lynn Azevedo and Michael Codron, Transportation Planner Terry Sanville, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1010 Murray Avenue and 1043 Foothill Boulevard. GP/R, A and LLA 145-01; Request to amend the General Plan and zoning map to rezone property at 1043 Foothill Boulevard from R-4 (high-density residential) to Office (0) to allow use, a height exception to allow a 35-foot high parking garage where a 25-foot high building is allowed; and a lot line adjustment combing six lots into 4 lots in conjunction with the Sierra Vista Hospital Master Plan; R-4 and O zones; Sierra Vista Hospital, applicant. Associate Planner Lynn Azevedo presented the staff report recommending the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Lot Line Adjustment, Use Permit, and Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to findings, mitigation measures, and conditions, as noted in the resolution. Commr. Cooper expressed concern about the parking and asked if they could make the 1.5 retroactive so that it includes the parking spaces for the existing hospital, but use this formula for the addition. Planner Azevedo replied yes. �r Planning Commission Minuted December 4,2002 Attachment 7 Page 2 Commr. Cooper questioned what constituted the 11 warrants that have to be met prior to the requirement for signalization. Transportation Planner Terry Sanville explained the warrant system is used by traffic engineers to evaluate intersections to determine whether traffic signals are warranted. This system includes 11 criterion, which are expressed in the sense of thresholds that would need to be exceeded for that particular warrant to be met. He read what the 11 warrants are. Commr. Cooper noted the ARC has already given preliminary assessment requirements on the parking in the garage and asked if there has been discussion about the parking reduction impact as a result of that. Planner Azevedo explained the offices and the parking garage affected street presence more than the parking spaces themselves. Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand noted there would be a reduction in the number of spaces because some are being eliminated to put in office space. He explained there would be an additional demand created by these offices, and noted the Planning Commission could provide direction to the ARC that parking is important, and the number of reduced parking spaces could be significant. Vice-Chair Osborne expressed appreciation for the memorandum that explains where the $25,000 housing replacement figure per unit came from and questioned what the source is of the other$125,000 per unit. George Moylan, SLO Housing Authority, explained that it is tax credit and a mortgage. Commr. Christianson mentioned she believes this is a project that fits the reason to make an exception to the rules and change zoning for housing, but expressed concern with parking and suggested that the ARC be made very aware that parking is a very significant part of a serviceable hospital. Chairwoman Loh commented that the preliminary parking analysis of September 21, 2001 had an estimated surplus of 30 spaces, and now, on April 24, 2002, there is over parking of 56 spaces. Planner Azevedo replied that the information in the current package is the correct number. John Hollander, 1010 Murray Avenue, Sierra Vista Medical Center, mentioned there have been 113 temporary parking spaces added and there is still not enough parking. He felt there is nothing in this plan that is excess. Eric Justesen, RRM Design Group, explained that parking and housing is their main concern as they plan the facility. He expressed concerns with how the hospital site would operate in terms of its daily activities and the functions of visitors, patients, doctors, and the mix of housing. He noted there are a number of design related issues a � � I Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 7 December 4, 2002 Page 3 that will have to be addressed and approved by the ARC. He stated they have provided a realistic demand for what the parking is on this site. Commr. Cooper asked if there could be a mandatory parking program rather than offering incentives for carpooling. John Knight, FIRM Design Group, explained the incentive-based program where Jamba Juice certificates are offered works well at the present time, but felt that in the future, this would not be the only program used. He mentioned there is a list of requirements that must be followed to reduce the demand for the parking. PUBLIC COMMENTS: MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, commented that she is against all the accommodations and parking garages, and stated housing is needed in San Luis Obispo. She further asked that the zoning not be changed to allow for this enterprise. Robert McEntyre, 128 Casa Street, asked where the entrance would be located if they build a parking lot on Foothill Boulevard. Planner Azevedo replied there is no access being proposed off of Foothill Boulevard or Casa Street and explained it would come off of Deseret Place.. Mr. McEntyre replied that Casa Street would then become a major throughway in that area. He asked if the applicant plans on changing the zoning to office on the east side of Casa Street. Planner Azevedo replied no. Victoria McEntyre, 128 Casa Street, mentioned she has worked in many places that had parking problems and various methods for carpooling, which have been unsuccessful. She noted there is a considerable and real problem with traffic and parking on Casa Street. Steve Delmartini, 962 Mill Street, SLO, commented on the magnitude of the project, and felt the City is in dire need of this project. Jim Lopes, 2230 Exposition Drive, felt the City should look at this location in relation to Cal Poly. He felt all multi-family properties near Cal Poly are worth their weight in gold rather than expendable properties. He mentioned the street frontage of Foothill Boulevard is an asset to the community since it presents itself as an activity corridor and should not be substituted by a parking garage that is the rear of a large office project. He suggested office uses or residential uses facing the street with parking internal to the site, and retention of the multi-family zoning. Mr. Knight rebutted some comments made from the public and concurred with Mr. Del Martini to keep the big picture in mind. He felt it is not practical to keep the residential R-4 portion as it is. a -� i Planning Commission Minutes December 4,2002 Attachment 7 Page 4 There were no further comments made from the public. Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo stated that because this is a General Plan Amendment, a minimum of four affirmative votes is needed before this can be passed on to the City Council for a recommendation, and if this super majority is not achieved, the Municipal Code provides that the Commission may forward it to the Council with individual recommendations. Commr. Aiken noted staff has broken the issues down to four items that were considered in the General Plan and Zoning Amendment, and the second is the use permit. He asked if the Use Permit would require that type of breakdown. Assistant City Attorney Trujillo replied yes, and explained that the provision noted earlier only applies to General Plan Amendments. Vice-Chair Osborne asked if four votes are required out of seven. Assistant City Attorney Trujillo clarified that because a quorum is five, normal actions can be passed on a two-three vote (a simple majority), but the code requires a four vote (a super majority) because it is a General Plan Amendment. Commr. Cooper offered an amendment to staff's recommendation, which would be that the applicant be asked to increase the requirement for parking. Deputy Director Whisenand interjected this would be most appropriately applied to the use permit as a condition of approval, and offered an option that if the Commission approves a permit for the expansion, any future medical office building or any future development would not need to come back to the Planning Commission, but would only need to go back to the ARC for architectural approval. Another option would be to make a recommendation to the City Council to rezone the entire campus to O-S. Commr. Aiken asked if they should rezone all of the properties O-S. Deputy Director Whisenand suggested not going forward with that recommendation. Assistant Attorney Trujillo mentioned that staff wanted to make an amendment to condition 1 of the resolution. Planner Azevedo read the revised language, that "all recommended environmental mitigation shall be incorporated into the project: and add "the applicant shall sign a revised applicant's acceptance of mitigated measures agreement." Assistant Attorney Trujillo explained that this will create a condition of approval that guarantees and provides protection. Commr. Aiken moved to recommend the City Council approve the General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment changing the land use designation of 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard from High-Density Residential (RA-to Office (0). subiect.to all the conditions as recommended and amended by staff. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. �r f Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 7 December 4,2002 Page 5 Deputy Director Whisenand clarified that this does not include an "S" (special considerations) overlay zone. Vice-Chair Osborne stated he is going to vote against the motion because he is not convinced that the project could not be redesigned and the parking garage could be relocated on the lot to allow high-density housing for Cal Poly students along Cat Poly Boulevard. Chairwoman Loh disagreed with Commr. Osborne, stating she felt Cal Poly students and faculty should not be accommodated along Foothill Boulevard, and stated the staff report notes that Foothill Boulevard is not a good place for an access. Commr. Christianson added that she sympathizes with Vice-Chair Osborne's comments about housing, but the Planning Commission's job is to look at the big picture and a hospital campus like this is the type of exception that the General Plan provides for in terms of a loss in housing. AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Cooper, Christianson, and Loh NOES: Commr. Osborne ABSENT: Commrs. Boswell and Caruso ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-1. Chairwoman Loh asked if the Commissioners would like to combine 2, 3, and 4 together. The Commission all agreed to combine them. Commr. Cooper noted staff did a great job suggesting ways to proceed, but felt the notion of having 1.5 spaces per bed retroactive was excessive. He suggested increasing the number of required parking spaces using the 1.5 multiplier, but using it only for the addition rather than the existing hospital. Chairwoman Loh replied there is still land available that is not owned by Sierra Vista Hospital, and if the potential is that they would someday buy them out, this would be a way to mitigate it. Commr. Christianson commented that the staff report states that if both the office building and the hospital addition were built, there would not be enough parking given the current demand. Planner Azevedo replied that the technical requirements are being met. 679 parking spaces are required, and 775 are proposed, so they are over by 96 spaces. However, their demand calculation of what they believe to be an accurate and comfortable projection shows a total need of 745 spaces, which would have an overspill of 30 spaces, which includes the parking at the Lutheran Church. �'3a` Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 7 December 4,2002 Page 6 Chairwoman Loh noted the parking situation would be evaluated one year after the project is completed. Commr. Aiken moved to approve the use permit to allow a hospital expansion and construction of a new parking garage, approve the lot line adiustment, and environmental review . Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Commr. Cooper emphasized his concern to the applicant and architect that the parking problem still needs to be solved. Deputy Director Whisenand noted the motion did not include the additional 1.5 parking spaces for the proposed project. The motion maker and second understood that that the additional 1.5 parking spaces was not included. AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Cooper, Christianson, and Loh NOES: Vice-Chair Osborne ABSENT: Commrs. Boswell and Caruso ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-1. Deputy Director Whisenand clarified that the General Plan and Zoning Map amendment changing the land use designation from High-Density Residential (R-4) to Office (0) is going forward to City Council, but those items noted in the motion are appealable; if they are not appealed, final action would rest with the Planning Commission. 2. 3301 Rockview Place. TR, PD and ER 155-02; Request to create a 9-unit pl ed development with variable setbacks, and environmental review, R-2-S e; J.H. Edwards, applicant. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff re recommending the Commission recommend approval of the proposed Pla Development rezoning, tentative tract map and Mitigated Negative Declarati o the City Council, based on findings and subject to conditions. Commr. Cooper questioned why an arch ogical study was not done. Planner Codron replied the de pment area of the project is an area that has already been previously develope d greatly disturbed. Commr. Cooper ded there is mention of a street tree planting program along Rockview a uestioned if this is an absolute requirement for this program. Pla r Codron replied it is a City standard that any development project requires street es at the discretion of the City Arborist. �� 33 - Attachment 8 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#1 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director MEETING DATE: December 4, 2002 Prepared by: Lynn M. Azevedo, Associate lanner(781-7166) FILE NUMBER: GP/R/U/ER 145-02 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1010 Murray Street (also 1043, 1045, and 1085 Foothill Blvd. and 41, 55, 77 and 139 Casa Street) SUBJECT: Consideration of the following in relation to expansion of Sierra Vista Hospital: 1. A General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment changing the land use designation of 1043/1045 Foothill Blvd. from High-Density Residential to Office; 2. A Use Permit to allow a hospital expansion and construction of a new parking garage; 3. A Lot Line Adjustment; and 4. Environmental Review(proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration). RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Lot Line Adjustment, Use Permit, and Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to findings, mitigation measures, and conditions as noted in the resolution. BACKGROUND Situation Sierra Vista Hospital is proposing to construct an addition to the hospital, a parking garage, central plant for mechanical equipment, and associated changes to surface parking and circulation. The hospital has applied for a general plan map amendment and rezoning, a use permit, architectural review, a lot line adjustment, and environmental review. The Planning Commission reviews general plan and zoning amendments and makes a recommendation to the City Council, who takes a final action on such requests. In this case, the Planning Commission will also be making a recommendation to the Council regarding the project use permit, lot line adjustment and environmental review. Any Planning Commission comments regarding project design will be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission. Data Summary Address: 1010 Murray Street (also 1043, 1045, and 1085 Foothill Blvd. and 41, 55, 77 and139 Casa Street) Applicant: Tenet California Health Systems Attachment 8 GP/R/U/LLA/ER 45-01 (Sierra Vista Expansion) December 4, 2002 Page 2 of 13 Representative: RRM Design Group Zoning: Office(0) and High-Density Residential (R-4) General Plan: Office and High-Density Residential Environmental status: On April 15, 2002, the Community Development Director determined that the project qualifies for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact. Site description The hospital property is comprised of several lots with a total area of approximately 11 acres, extending from Murray Street to Foothill Boulevard and from Casa Street to Stenner Creek/Santa Rosa Street. Surrounding uses include houses, apartments, and offices. ProjectDescription The applicant has applied for the following entitlements: 1. General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to change the land use designation of the parcel at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard from High-Density Residential (R-4) to Office; 2. Use permit to allow non-residential development (a hospital addition and multi-level parking garage) in the Office zone and to allow a 35-foot tall parking structure where 25 feet would otherwise be the maximum allowed height, 3. Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure lot boundaries; and 4. Architectural review of the proposed hospital and new parking garage with associated changes to surface parking layout and landscaping. Sierra Vista Hospital is proposing an 85,000 square foot, three-story addition to the existing structure to accommodate approximately 24 additional beds and expanded cardiac care services. To address the existing and anticipated parking demand, a parking garage is proposed at the comer of Casa Street and Foothill Boulevard with roughly 400 parking spaces. A central plant is proposed adjacent to the garage to house new mechanical equipment associated with hospital operations. Changes are also proposed to the on-site surface parking, circulation, and landscaping. Construction of the parking garage and central plant requires redesignation/rezoning of the property as 1043/1045 Foothill Boulevard from "High Density Residential" to "Office" and demolition of three residential structures, containing a total of 4 dwellings, one small office structure, and a church. Demolition of the church at 55 Casa Street has already been completed consistent with the conditions of ARC 146-01. The former church site will serve as temporary surface parking for the hospital campus. The hospital's master plan includes a future medical office building of approximately 40,000 to Attachment 8 GP/R/U/LLA/ER 45-01 (Sierra Vista Expansion) December 4, 2002 Page 3 of 13 45,000 square feet. The medical office building is not part of this project, although it was taken into consideration in overall site planning and is specifically addressed in the project's traffic study. EVALUATION A. Planning Commission Direction The Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 24, 2002, continued the above project, with the direction listed below. Staff has met with the applicants several times since the last Commission meeting who have provided the requested information. Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2002 are attached along with a Memorandum from RRM Design Group, applicant's representative, dated November 1, 2002 addressing the Planning Commission's direction/request for information. 1. The applicant shall provide the Planning Commission with an estimate of the greatest number of employees on the project site at any one time, under current conditions and as projected. Response: The greatest potential number of employees on site under current conditions is approximately 600 (450 hospital employees, 50 physicians, 25 volunteers, and 75 MOB (medical office building) employees). Total number of employees is expected to increase by about 25%to 750 employees (75 for the hospital expansion and 75 for the new MOB). Note that these figures exclude vendors, inpatients,outpatients, and visitors. 2. The applicant shall provide the Planning Commission with the current peak demand for parking at the hospital, and a list of the current parking demand management strategies used by the hospital and information regarding how successful the program has been. Response: Peak parking demand is during the traditional 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. shift. All of the existing 500+/- parking spaces are filled during this time. The greatest parking peak tends to be from about 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. when there are more visitors, doctors, and volunteers. Parking demand strategies currently employed provide incentives for carpooling, walking, riding the bus, and parking off-site at the Lutheran Church. These strategies have helped to keep the parking demand to a manageable level, but still leave an unmet parking demand. The applicant will be able to elaborate more on the alternative transportation/parking incentives if so desired by the Commission. A flier on the hospital's Rideshare/Church Parking Program is attached to this report. 3. The applicant and staff shall discuss the undergrounding of utilities and report back to the Planning Commission with more information regarding the issue. r3r�,Q _ Attachment 8 GP/R/U/LLA/ER 45-01 (Sierra Vista Expansion) December 4,2002 Page 4 of 13 Representatives for Sierra Vista met with City staff on several occasions to discuss this issue since the April Planning Commission meeting. On October 29, 2002, Public Works Director Michael McCluskey and Sierra Vista representatives came to an agreement on the undergrounding issue. This agreement includes the following: o Sierra Vista will install underground conduit for all above-ground wires with necessary pull boxes for (1) the frontage along Foothill beginning at the utility pole next to the Creek to the comer of Casa Street and (2) the frontage of Casa Street from the comer of Foothill Blvd. to the utility pole on the south side of Deseret. Public Works Department finds that the placement of conduits at this time will allow for easier, quicker, and less expensive undergrounding of overhead wires in the future. 4. The applicant is directed to consider additional mitigation for the loss of housing as a result of the rezoning of R-4 property. The applicant is proposing to rezone a lot located at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard from High-Density Residential (R-4) to Office (0) to better accommodate a new parking garage for the hospital. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines state that a project may be considered to have a significant environmental effect if it will conflict with land use plans, policies, or regulations. In this case, the City's General Plan contains polices that encourage retention and conservation of housing and land zoned for housing, as well as, polices that encourage strengthening the City's role as a regional hub for medical services. While the project is clearly consistent with goals and policies in the second category, it will reduce land area available for residential development. The impacts associated with a reduction in residentially-zoned land must be weighed against the project's consistency with other General Plan goals, specifically, Land Use Element policy 2.6.2, which indicates that under certain circumstances, a reduction in land zoned for residential uses may be warranted. L U 2.6.2:Boundary Adjustments The City may adjust land-use boundaries in a way that would reduce land designated as residential, only if A) A significant, long-term neighborhood or citywide need, which outweighs the preference to retain residential capacity, will be met; and B) The need is best met at the proposed location and no comparable alternative exists. Provision of medical services is a significant long-term, citywide need, and expansion of hospital services is best accomplished on the hospital campus and in the immediate vicinity. Please note Attachment 8 GP/R/U/LLA/ER 45-01 (Sierra Vista Expansion) December 4, 2002 Page 5 of 13 that this policy does not indicate the need for mitigating the loss of residential property. Nonetheless, the applicant is offering compensation to the Housing Authority and City for the loss of housing. What number of units should be compensated for? The lot to be rezoned from High-Density Residential (R-4) to Office (0), located at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard, is approximately 19,140 square feet in area. Roughly one-fifth of that area is within the channel of Stenner Creek and, therefore, not part of the net site area used in density calculations. There are currently three unoccupied apartments in two structures on the R-4 site: two 2- bedroom apartments and one 1-bedroom apartment. Estimated development potential based solely on zoning regulation density calculations is roughly 8 density units, which is the equivalent of 8 two-bedroom dwellings. It is unlikely that the maximum number of potential dwellings could or would be developed on the site, given existing structures, the location of the creek, access from Foothill Boulevard, the location of the new bus turnout on Foothill Boulevard, and noise exposure. Providing a financial compensation for the loss of the 3 dwellings on the R-4 parcel can be deemed reasonable, meeting the "rough proportionality" test required by CEQA in determining adequate mitigation — especially since Land Use Element policy 2.6.2 recognizes legitimate reductions in residential land as long as a project meets the criteria stipulated in the policy. It might be interesting to note that the City's 1977 Land Use Element Update redesignated this same property from Office to High Density Residential, the reverse of what the applicant is proposing currently. This redesignation was part of a larger effort in the vicinity to maintain residential uses in what was identified then as a "professional office" area. In 1981, the City Council initiated rezonings in the Foothill/Casa area to make zoning consistent with the new "High Density Residential" land use designation. The rezoning of this particular parcel took almost one year as there was much debate as to whether the land use for this parcel should be office or residential. The property owner of 1085 Foothill at that time, Dr. Robinson D.D.S., intended to buy the 1045 Foothill property and construct a medical complex, which seemed to have merit with some Planning Commissioners and Council Members. In the end, it was obviously rezoned R-4. Is the amount of financial compensation reasonable? The applicant met with the Director of the Housing Authority to try and determine an appropriate financial compensation per dwelling unit. Based on more recent projects completed by the Housing Authority, the cost of land per dwelling unit has been approximately $25,000. Once land is secured for a project, the Housing Authority finances the design, construction and r �� Attachment 8 GP/R/U/LLA/ER 45-01 (Sierra Vista Expansion) December 4, 2002 Page 6 of 13 maintenance costs with a combination of tax credits, mortgages, and rents. Because securing land is typically the most difficult aspect.of an affordable housing project, it was determined that a financial contribution toward land acquisition would be the most appropriate approach to mitigation. George Moylan, Director of the Housing Authority, prepared a memorandum dated 10/24/02 (attached) further elaborating on the "Genesis of the $25,000 Housing Replacement Contribution Formula." The applicant has also submitted a summary of the fees associated with the project that will be applied to affordable housing as follows: Housing Mitigation(3 x $25,000) (to H.A.) $75,000 Mitigation as part of Deseret Abandonment(to H.A.) $65,000 In-Lieu Housing Fees for Hospital $260,000 In-Lieu Housing Fees for Central Plant $50,000 TOTAL $450,000 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission find that the payment to the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo of$25,000 per dwelling toward land acquisition is a logical rate of compensation based on a cost analysis of recent Housing Authority projects. How would demolition v. relocation of the existing housing affect project consistency with General Plan policies? The two, unoccupied, residential structures on the R-4 lot could be re-located. Several people interested in the houses have contacted the hospital. None of them have been shown the houses because the hospital is concerned about liability. A certain amount of archaeological work must also be completed before the houses could be moved and that work won't start for several months. In the meantime, the hospital has provided interested parties w/the detailed pictures, the asbestos report, & the assessor's information. Re-locating the two existing structures on the R-4 lot, would improve project consistency with the following policies: H3.Z1:Demolition The City shall discourage the demolition ofsound or rehabilitable existing housing. H 3.1.1: Conservation Conserve existing housing supply and prevent displacement of current occupants. H 3.Z.3:Rehabilitation of Older Dwellings Since older dwellings can often be relocated and refurbished for considerably less cost than for a comparable new dwelling, and since older dwellings may offer spatial and material amenities unavailable in new dwellings, the City, in the interest of both economy and housing variety, will encourage rehabilitating such dwellings rather than demolition. of U Attachment 8 GP/R/U/LLA/ER 45-01 (Siena Vista Expansion) December 4, 2002 Page 7 of 13 While conservation/relocation of existing housing is preferred, demolition of the proposed housing is not prohibited. The hospital is not opposed to relocation of the residential units by another party, however,timing and liability issues may affect the reality of this happening. 5. The applicant and staff shall consider and report back to the Planning Commission on the potential impacts, in terms of overparking or other issues, that may arise if the Medical Office Building is not built. RRM Design Group has provided a "Preliminary Parking Analysis," dated 9/21/01 and attached to this report, which summarizes the parking scenario. Please refer to this table with the written summary below. The medical office building (MOB) would be constructed by someone other than the applicant and is likely to start construction prior to the hospital expansion. If the subject applications are approved, a submittal will be made for the MOB and the permit processing time for a private building such as this is less than the permit process through OSHPD for the hospital. An office space survey, recently completed by the City, indicates there is a demand for medical office space, especially near the hospitals. Currently, based on zoning regulation calculations for the existing hospital, medical office building and MRI unit, there is a parking demand for approximately 430 spaces, where 501 spaces are provided. Field observations, however, indicate that current parking demand is for 496 spaces which number is regularly exceeded, especially during daytime business hours. The current lack of available parking is a significant concern for hospital management, visitors, and employees. At roughly 45,000 square feet, the proposed future medical office building would require 225 parking spaces. The zoning ordinance requires one parking space per 200 square feet of medical offices space. Field observations indicate this number is fairly representative of the actual demand for medical office parking. The zoning requirement for hospitals is one space per bed.. Hence the 85,000 square foot addition to the hospital only requires an additional 24 new spaces. The estimated total need at build-out with the hospital expansion and new MOB is 745 spaces, utilizing the actual demand estimate for the existing facilities. Including the 40 parking spaces the hospital "leases" from the Lutheran Church, 775 parking spaces would be provided for a net of-10 on-site spaces or an "overage" of 30 spaces since the hospital is unlikely to end the lease of spaces from the church. Utilizing the actual number of spaces required by ordinance, 679 spaces would be required creating an overage of 96 spaces. Given that the current "surplus" doesn't meet actual demand for significant parts of the day, demand may again exceed supply once both the hospital addition and the medical office building are completed. It seems the number of parking spaces prescribed by current City ordinance for a hospital does not adequately meet the parking demand generated by a 236,000 square-foot facility with a & 4o Attachment 8 GP/R/U/LLA/ER 45-01 (Sierra Vista Expansion) December 4,2002 Page 8 of 13 capacity for approximately 200 patients, plus visitors, volunteers, and roughly 600 employees at any one time. The Planning Commission could specify a parking requirement greater than the minimum required by the City zoning regulations. Alternative means of calculating required parking for hospitals in other jurisdictions include: 1 space per bed plus 1 space per 1000 square feet (necessitating 375 spaces), and 1.5 spaces per bed (necessitating 339 spaces). As requested by the Planning Commission, if the hospital addition and garage were constructed without the medical office building, the 225 spaces proposed for the new medical office building would theoretically be surplus. The actual surplus, however, would likely be far less. Also, as mentioned above, it is anticipated that the MOB would start construction prior to the hospital expansion. Recommendation: Construction of the hospital addition should occur prior to construction of any future medical office building to enable time to evaluate adjusted parking demand resulting from the hospital addition. Any application for a future medical office building should include a parking study addressing existing demand at Siena Vista; providing background information on hospital parking requirements from other comparable cities; and parking provided at other comparable hospitals. 6. The applicant and staff shall work together to resolve outstanding issues listed in the .letter from John Knight, dated April 24,2002. Bus Shelter and Transit Turnout John Knight asked for clarification of responsibilities regarding the bus shelter and transit turnout on Foothill Boulevard. Public Works has responded with the following conditions: "Since the project is located on an established transit route, a transit turnout and shelter shall be constructed with direct pedestrian access to and from the facility. The shelter shall meet City standards and shall be provided to the City by the applicant. The shelter and transit turnout will be installed by the City as part of the Foothill Bridge project. " "The applicant shall dedicate necessary right of way (or an easement) along Foothill Boulevard for a new bus turnout and an easement for a transit shelter, prior to issuance of any City building or grading permits, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. " Biological Issues John Knight requested that the condition pertaining to creek setbacks be clarified to acknowledge work will take place within the creek setback in order to remove existing encroachments. The condition has been changed accordingly. Attachment 8 GP/R/U/LLA/ER 45-01 (Sierra Vista Expansion) December 4, 2002 Page 9 of 13 Energy Efficiency Measures Mr. Knight provided a list of energy efficiency measures intended to be used for the hospital. These were forwarded to the APCD for review and comment. APCD staff comments confirmed that the measures listed would satisfy that agency's recommendation that the hospital exceed Title 24 energy requirements by 20%. Conditions of approval have been modified to simply require confirmation that the approved construction documents include energy saving measures noted in Mr. Knight's list. 7. The applicant is directed to provide additional information to the Planning Commission on the traffic conditions at the Murray/Casa intersection. Has a warrant study been done for signalization of the intersection? One of a series of 11 warrants must be met before signalization of an intersection should be considered. Currently, the Murray/Casa intersection does not meet any of these warrants. Using the trip generation and distribution figures presented in the Sierra Vista Traffic Impact Study, the Murray/Casa intersection will continue to not meet warrants after completion of the Sierra Vista expansion. Further analysis indicates that this intersection will not meet all-way stop control warrants after the expansion either. The traffic volumes at this intersection are lower than required for either traffic signal or all-way stop volume warrants. Current collision history for this intersection does not meet all-way stop control nor traffic signal collision warrants. It is anticipated that collision patterns for this intersection will not significantly change with the Sierra Vista expansion. The Transportation Division of Public Works monitors intersection safety annually through an annual traffic safety report. Should the number of collisions at this intersection increase to a level that requires mitigation, it will be identified in this annual report. Recommendation: No change should be made to the Murray and Casa Street intersection at this time. B. General Plan Consistency There are several General Plan policies that relate to the project's proposal to rezone a lot at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard from High-Density Residential to Office, and to remove 3 existing dwellings. General Plan policies tend to favor retention of residential uses and discourage conversion of residential uses to commercial ones. However, certain policies related to the location of medical offices would tend to support this proposal. The project is subject to review by the Planning Commission and City Council for a determination of General Plan consistency. The key issue for the Commission to consider is the requested rezoning. Rezoning is necessary because the proposed parking structure is not an allowed use in the R-4 zoning district. The proposed office zone would accommodate the parking structure and would be contiguous with other Office-zoned property. In general, the City discourages any changes to the Land Use Attachment 8 GP/R/U/LLA/ER 45-01 (Sierra Vista Expansion) December 4, 2002 Page 10 of 13 Element map that would reduce the area of the City's residentially zoned land, and it is rare for such a project to be brought before the Planning Commission and Council. In this case, staff believes that there are policies that specifically support the applicant's request. In particular, the Land Use Element policy 2.6.2 Boundary Adjustments says that, under certain circumstances, the City may adjust land-use boundaries in a way that would reduce land designated as residential. In this case staff believes that the expansion of the medical center is consistent with General Plan policies and goals related to: • satisfying a city-wide need for essential services; • furthering the City's stated desire to serve as a hub for medical services; • facilitating retention of an existing business; and • meeting the criteria for location of medical facilities in the City. Housing Element Policy 11.2.1 is also important to consider. This policy requires the City to give preference to residential uses over commercial uses if the site is equally suited for both. In this case, the project site is better suited for the hospital expansion because of the relatively small size of the R4 lot and the context of its surroundings. Applicable General Plan goals and policies were addressed in the April 24, 2002 Planning Commission report attached. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission find the proposed change to the Land Use Element and Zoning maps consistent with General Plan policies related to the location of medical facilities and housing, provided that adequate mitigation for the loss of housing is provided. C. Use Permit A Use Permit is required for the construction of non-residential structures or the conversion of residential structures to non-residential uses in the Office zone and for a 35-foot maximum height where 25 feet is otherwise the maximum height allowed. 1. Construction of non-residential structures: Use Permit approval for this request must be based on the following findings per footnote 11 in Table 9 of the Zoning Ordinance: M.a. That the location, orientation, height, and mass of the new structure will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas. The proposed addition to the hospital, while tall, would be set near the center of the hospital n � 3 Attachment 8 GP/R/U/LLA/ER 45-01 (Sierra Vista Expansion) December 4, 2002 Page 1 I of 13 property, well back from any street frontages. As such, it is not likely to significantly affect privacy for nearby residents. It is consistent with a previous height variance granted to the hospital. The garage will require careful treatment to avoid significantly affecting residents across Casa Street. This issue was discussed at length at a preliminary hearing by the Architectural Review Commission. The ARC provided the following direction regarding the garage: Redesign the parking garage to be more compatible with nearby residential structures and uses and to relate more strongly to pedestrians at the street level. Commissioners offered the following suggestions: Use the lower level of the garage facing.Casa Street for hospital office uses. Reduce the massing of the building. Step back the upper level. Notch the Casa Street and Foothill Boulevard facades to provide additional. setbacks of the wall plane, similar to the notches at the comers. Provide more articulation to the facades. Vary the line of the parapet. Use more mullions. Trellis the blank walls. Use something other than wire mesh to cover the lower level openings. Redesign the garage to be less hard-edged and urban. Provide lighting details. Avoid light spill over and glare. 11.b. The project's location and access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local streets in nearby residential neighborhoods. A traffic study has been prepared for this project. It also includes projected traffic volumes for a future medical office building. While the project will increase traffic on Murray and Casa Streets, both of these streets already contain a mix of residential and office uses. The hospital addition would increase traffic by approximately 10%. With the future medical office building, traffic would increase roughly 20%over existing levels. The Public Works Department staff has reviewed the traffic study and project plans and recommends mitigation to reduce traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Please refer to the discussion under Transportation/Traffic in the environmental initial study and to the trip generation diagrams attached to the initial study. 11.c. The project will include landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking andpedestrian circulation from sites in nearby residential areas. Landscaping and setbacks along Casa Street will be subject to final review and approval by the -44 Attachment 8 GP/R/U/LLA/ER 45-01 (Sierra Vista Expansion) December 4, 2002 Page 12 of 13 Architectural Review Commission. 2. Maximum height of.35 feet The zoning regulations allow a maximum height of 35 feet rather than 25 feet in the Office zone with Use Permit approval. This height exception is being requested for the parking garage in order to accommodate the additional parking deemed necessary for the hospital's master plan. Since lack of adequate parking has been a problem at this facility, staff supports the proposed exception. There is, however, a concern with the compatibility of preliminary garage designs with nearby residential uses, especially across Casa Street. Please refer to the above discussion describing the ARC's direction after preliminary review of the garage design. Staff Recommendation: The Use Permit approval should be contingent on architectural approval with particular attention to the criteria outlined for acceptable non-residential development in an Office zone that includes a mix of office and residential uses. D. Lot Line Adjustment The applicant proposes to adjust the boundaries between six existing lots to create four new lots to accommodate the hospital's master site development plan. Lot line adjustments are typically processed administratively, unless they involve an exception to subdivision standards. In this case, the proposed lot reconfiguration includes one lot, which does not have frontage on a public street. Public Works and Utility Department staff have reviewed the proposed adjustment and support the lot configuration provided each lot is served with separate utilities and a common access and parking easement is recorded. Recommendation: Approval of the lot line adjustment as proposed with conditions regarding a parking and access easement and provision of separate utilities to each lot. E. Environmental Impacts The environmental initial study is attached. Several issues are identified as potentially significant without mitigation. The most significant issues are aesthetics, cultural resources, land use policy consistency, and traffic. Less significant issues are related to air quality, biology, energy conservation, geology/soils, hydrology, noise, and utilities. Mitigation is recommended to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. A summary of mitigation is attached to the draft resolution for approval as Exhibit C. Please note that some minor changes were made to the Initial Study since the Planning Commission's April review of the document. Specifically, monitoring programs were added to each section. Also, an additional mitigation measure (#I) was added regarding undergrounding of utilities and minor changes made to the mitigation for Attachment 8 GP/R/U/LLA/ER 45-01 (Sierra Vista Expansion) December 4, 2002 Page 13 of 13 transportation-related impacts. This will be discussed in detail at the Commission meeting. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the project with modified findings, conditions or mitigation measures. 2. Continue the item with direction regarding additional information needed to make a recommendation to the City Council. 3. Deny the project based on findings. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Other Department comments are incorporated into recommended mitigation and attached to the initial study. Attached: Vicinity Map Aerial View of existing conditions Conceptual site plan Reduced elevations of hospital addition Reduced elevations of parking garage Planning Commission Minutes from 4/24/02 meeting Memorandum from RRM Design Group dated 11/01/02 Sierra Vista flier on its"Rideshare/Church Parking Program" Memorandum from the Housing Authority dated 10/24/02 re: Housing Replacement Formula Sierra Vista Hospital—Preliminary Parking Analysis dated 9/21/01 April 24, 2002 Planning Commission Staff Report for GPA/R/UP/LLA/ER 45-01 less exhibits Initial Study Draft Resolution for Approval (less Exhibit C) Draft Resolution.for Denial G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\lazevedo\PC\145-01 Sierra Vista PC rptldoc Planning Commission Mir'b_ ',�. Attachment 8 April 24, 2002 Page 4 Commr. Cooper noted that it is not appropriate to debate the merits of this ordinance. He felt they should only debate the merits of this particular application. Vice-Chair Osborne supported the motion, but felt this is a violation of the ordinance. He suggested the City should revisit the ordinance, at a later time. Commr. Peterson stated he does not support the motion on principle. He noted there is an affordable housing crisis for students, as well as an inordinate amount of R-1 zoned residences, and felt the City is not planning for the actual housing needs of the City. Commr. Aiken supported of the motion and felt this does not only apply to students. Chairwoman Loh supported upholding the Hearing Officer's decision because this situation is in need of five parking spaces. AYES: Commr. Cooper, Loh, Aiken, Osborne, Boswell. NOES: Commr. Peterson. ABSENT: Commr. Caruso. ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 5-1. Assistant Attorney Trujillo noted that the applicant has 10 days to appeal the decision to the City Council. 2. 1010 Murray Avenue. GP/R, U and LLA 145-01; General Plan Amendment and Zone Reclassification to change property at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard from High-Density Residential (R-4) to Office (0) that will allow for expansion of Sierra Vista Hospital. In addition, requests have been made to allow an office use in the 0 zone; height exception to allow a 35400t high parking garage where 25-feet is normally allowed; lot line adjustment combining 6 lots into 4 lots, and environmental review; 0 zone; Sierra Vista Hospital, applicant. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report, recommending adoption of a resolution recommending the City Council approve the general plan amendment and rezoning and the use permit, based on findings and subject to conditions, as noted in the resolution. Commr. Cooper commented that staff is basing parking demands for hospital on field observations. He asked if the Planning Commission is being asked to go up to 1.5 spaces because the current standards are not adequate? Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand explained that parking is an ongoing concern in the City. He stated they have received numerous complaints and have been working with Sierra Vista Hospital for the last five years to address the parking problems. Commr. Cooper asked if the church is going to be demolished. A-1.41 1.41 Planning Commission Mil_ April 24, 2002 Attachment 8 Page 5 Planner Codron replied that a permit for demolition has not yet been issued.. Commr. Cooper suggested some references should be incorporated in the initial study. He asked if there has been discussion in any of the studies regarding a possible signalized light for Casa Street and Murray Avenue intersection. Supervising Civil Engineer Jerry Kenny explained he has not personally studied the report on whether or not a traffic signal is justified. He stated that an intersection must meet certain criteria in order to be considered for a signal. Commr. Peterson asked whether or not the existing housing units on the site are characterized as being in sound condition. Deputy Director Whisenand stated that the definition of "sound' would vary from person to person and explained that he went to the site a year ago and noted they appeared to be neglected. Commr. Boswell asked if a traffic study has occurred on the Foothill Boulevard and Casa Street intersection? Supervising Engineer Kenny explained that the traffic report should include that information. Commr. Boswell asked if staff recommended that a signal study be conducted after construction is complete. Planner Codron explained that after the structure is complete, the monitoring mitigation measures require the applicant to evaluate how this intersection is functioning, and to have this information available in an annual safety report. Deputy Director Whisenand stated they could specify that a study be conducted as a condition. Commr. Boswell asked if consideration has been given to having a right-of-way for a bus turnout on Casa Street? Supervising Engineer Kenny felt parking would have to be removed to accommodate a bus turn-around, but did not recall one being incorporated into the project. Vice-Chair Osborne questioned what the impact of this project would be on the adjacent R-4 lot on Foothill Boulevard? Deputy Director Whisenand explained there are other R-4 properties across the street. This property is a little larger and contains a higher density development than what currently exists on the R-4 lots on the other side of creek. aV 0 Planning Commission Mie. April 24,2002 Attachment 8 Page 6 Chairwoman Loh asked if the same property owner owns all three houses on Foothill Boulevard. If so, she questioned if they intend to build new houses as allowed for in the R-4 zone. Deputy Director Whisenand replied that the applicant implied that all three houses are owned by Sierra Vista and they do not intend to build on the site. Supervising Engineer Kenny noted that a condition was inadvertently left out of the report. He commented there has been discussion between the architect and City staff regarding the bus turnout and easements for bridge widening. He explained the condition was that the developer would install the bus turnout. However, with negotiations between staff and the applicant, it had been agreed that the applicant would provide the shelter and the easement for it, and the City would do the construction of the turnout, along with the bridge construction. John Hollander, Tenet, gave a brief summary on the project's parking issue. John Knight, Project Manager, RRM Design Group, explained that this is a large complicated mixed-use project. He noted one main objective of overall master plan is to address the parking problem. He explained that the existing parking lot does not have good circulation. The master plan should overcome the parking problem and improve the circulation. He stated Public Works Department has requested the existing driveway be moved back. Sinu Ashami, LBL Architects, explained the overall concept of the Master Plan and the architecture of the project. He stated there are three structures that would be discussed in the master plan; the hospital addition, the parking structure, and the central plan which is attached to the back of the parking structure. Michelle Windler, Principle with Watry Design, stated they were requesting a height exception for the parking structure to be 35-feet. Commr. Aiken asked why a height exception is needed. Planner Codron explained the height limit is 25-feet; 35-feet is allowed with use permit approval. Commr. Peterson if the applicant has considered a design that could leave the R-4 parcels, and how much would this affect the capacity of the garage? Mr. Hollander replied yes. He explained they started out with a design that did not include these parcels because they were not sure they could purchase the comer parcel. Mr. Knight explained they had looked at several different locations for the parking garage. He referred to the map to show the different locations that they considered. Chairwoman Loh noted there are four lots along Casa Street that do not belong to Sierra Vista Hospital and asked if they intend to eventually buy them? Planning commission Min._ Attachment 8 April 24,2002 Page 7 Mr. Knight explained that it is in the best interest of the hospital to ultimately own all of the property within this block, but they do not have immediate plans to purchase those properties. Commr. Cooper asked why the footprint doesn't recognize the creek a little more. Mr. Knight explained they have not designed the building yet, but they have respected the City's creek setback ordinance. Commr. Osborne noted that the plans indicate building a new cardiac institute and asked why they would give up desperately needed housing space for this duplication of cardiac services? Mr. Knight explained that they have planned for the growth of the facility and the cardiac unit is only one floor. Commr. Boswell asked if the applicant has researched vegetated screening to the creek, or mitigation for the area to be encroached on since the road cannot be moved? Mr. Knight explained there would be a variety of native plantings all along the creek. Commr. Boswell asked if they would need to make an assessment on how many units would be mitigated and questioned how many this would be? Deputy Director Whisenand explained that due to the creek setback requirements and the existing land uses in the area, eight would be the maximum number of units that could be built at the site or redeveloped for housing. Commr. Boswell asked where the primary outdoor noise generators are located . Mr. Knight referred to the map for an explanation as to where the noise generators would be located. Commr. Boswell asked what is the maximum of employees that are on site at any time? Mr. Knight replied he did not have an answer for the question. Commr. Boswell explained he was trying to get a sense of why there is a current parking problem and how they could solve it. Commr. Peterson asked about the condition of the residential units that would be demolished. Mr. Knight felt they are in poor shape, but students were living in them a year in a half ago. -SZ) i 1 Planning Commission Minu April 2a,2002 Attachment 8 Page 8 Chairwoman Loh noted that there was a preliminary parking analysis done and asked if there will be enough service parking for the patients and the visitors? Mr. Knight replied that there currently is not enough service parking. Chairwoman Loh expressed her concern about the erosions of the creek setback. She asked if the applicant was in agreement with the mitigation measures and asked how they intend to monitor them? Mr. Knight explained they have concerns with some of the mitigation measures. He briefly went through his concerns and discussed the new conditions given to them. Planner Codron noted there was one conflict with Mr. Knight's presentation relative to Title 24: Compliance. He stated that he has five items that would modify the recommendation, and after a motion, he would like to add them for consideration. Deputy Director Whisenand explained the Lot Line Adjustment is a very minor component of the project, but wanted to include it for the Commission's review. He felt it complies with the local building and zoning code requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and supports the request. Commr. Boswell asked how the applicant felt about the ABC's recommendation to use the lower level of the parking garage facing Casa Street for hospital office use? Mr. Knight explained that it creates much difficulty using the lower level of the parking garage for anything other than a parking garage. Commr. Boswell questioned if the Planning Commission would be involved in any entitlements on the proposed future medical office uses? Deputy Director Whisenand explained that the zoning would not need to change as a result, and any future development would have to comply with the current regulations. He stated the project is subject to Architectural Review. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Andrea Miller, 849 Mill Street, did not feel the houses were unlivable and suggested they keep this housing. She also suggested if this project is approved, that a traffic signal be installed or a traffic study be prepared at this intersection. Fred Bemoki, 1930 Valley Vista Place, commented on how many parking spaces would be allocated to this M.O.V. and asked the Commissioners to think about what they would be approving on the M.O.V. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: L -- Attachment 8 4. The applicant is directed to consider additional mitigation for the loss housing on the R-4 parcel. Response: The applicant has an agreement with the housing authority to mitigate for the existing three(3) units on the site at$25,000/unit. There is no precedence in the City for mitigating for he than 1:1 for loss of existing housing. This is further supported by the City's draft ordinance to require 1:1 mitigation for loss of housing in the downtown plan. Some additional points to consider: a. Justification for the $25,000 per unit fee has been provided by the Housing Authority(see attached letter). b. The R-4 site was originally zoned Office"O". c. The R4 site is not appropriate for residential development due to its limited access as a result of the new bridge improvements and the location of a bus shelter. d. Loss of housing at the Marigold Center was mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. e. Total fees paid on housing related issues are estimated at$450,000(see below). Housing Mitigation $75,000 Mitigation Agreed as part of Deseret Abandonment $65,000 In Lieu Housing Fees for Hospital $260,000 In Lieu Housing Fees for Central Plant $50,000 Total Housing Related Fees $450,000.00 f. Additional Housing In-Lieu Fees will be paid for the Medical Office Building(MOB)of approximately$100,000. 5. The applicant and staff shall report back to the PC on the potential impacts, in terms of parking and other issues, if the MOB is not built. Response: The MOB is an integral part of the expansion. Expansion of medical office space goes hand in hand with expansion of hospital space. Furthermore,the critical need for new medical office space in San Luis Obispo is well documented by a recent City survey. 6. The applicant shall work together to resolve outstanding issues listed in the letter from John Knight,dated April 24,2002. Response: The applicant and staff have met to resolve the outstanding issues. 7. The applicant is directed to provide additional information to the PC on the traffic conditions and Murray/Casa. Response: The applicant has talked with Public Work Staff and both parties concur that a signal is not appropriate at the Murray/Casa intersection. a�� MAY-13-02 02:24PM FROM-RRM Design Group 805-543-4609 T-473 P-001/001 F-565 / SIERRA VIS _. REGIONAL MED ,;)AL CENTER encourages all employees to participate in the Attachmeni"n Rideshare/Church Parking Program m It's easy And you can earn points for great incentives! Pick up your Rideshare/Church Parking Tracking Form in Human Resources. Mark the box for the day of the week and mode of transportation used. 4 CMS, (Locatled on the MVWer ofFoO&W&Santa Rosa)Par"ng("Oilats) -Person crirpool 021poivts) v Dropped OffOpoint) , Picked U � p (I point) Ysnpool= 6t Riders(Sprints) WA&(2points) Bicy&e OW ruts) ' 1Pazblie Ti�ansit(.�po � . , m v Each point is.worth fifty cents. Completed forms are due to the HR Dept. by the 5th day of the month__ J, Rideshare Points are calculated-on a quarterly basis. Employees select incentives they would like to receive. Z $5.00—Jaunha andee (IOports) $5.00- Wherehouse Records (IO points) 55:00- upper eruct Gourmet Pizza (7Opoints). � J/ $10.00—Bame•s c&NoWe Bookvtore (20 pornts) o S-IO.00- copeiannA s Sports(620 po ants) _ V $►10.00-fete's Southside Care (2O points) 5s>0.00- cafe oma (40 points) �.0.00—Sears Roebuck c& Co. (40 points) Incentive Certificates are delivered to employees. Points add up quickly! Participate in the Rideshare/Church Parking Program today! s ; �-}i-T_?--2--.-r 3-t_3-i_s•e_�'-;_rte„ •y��s �_s'R.'3-�-a -s- _ -s_rr }' �->`2_ $ �- -e_9 f� rJ Attachment 8 L� LO �i ooQ .ON,Y.Yt 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 San Luis Obispo Executive Director-secretary George J.Moylan MEMORANDUM October 24, 2002 TO: ERIC JUSTESEN, RRM DESIGN GROUP FROM: George J. Moylan, Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo SUBJECT: Genesis of$25,000 Housing Replacement Contribution Formula You have asked for an explanation of how thisagency arrived at the$25;000 per unit contribution amount. That is easy to do but some understanding of housing terms and the history of how we have arrived at that amount is necessary. So please permit me to try to explain as follows: LEVERAGING Webster defines"leverage"as"the action of a lever or the mechanical advantage gained by it"and then in a financial sense as"the use of credit to enhance one's speculative capacity". In it's glossary of terms the Housing and Development Reporter defines leverage or leveraging as, "The technique, usually through borrowing, of maximizing an investment's profit-equity ratio". Thus this in a nutshell is how we"leverage"the $25,000 per unit contribution we ask. from the developers of the Marigold Center or Sierra Vista Regional Hospital into developing affordable housing in this community. The Center for Community Change has been the chief promoter of many of the 275 local Housing Trust Funds that now exist in this country. In their recent"Housing.Trust Fund Progress Report 2002"they indicate local housing trust funds leverage local dollars within a range of$4.89 to $9.25 for every $1 the trust fund invests in a project. The national average is an 8:1 ratio. Fora variety of reasons we do not generally meet the 8:1 ratio cited by the Center for Community Change,however, according to Dana Lilley, the Planner who dispenses Community Development Block Grant Funds for the County of San Luis Obispo the leveraging factor experienced with those funds is in the$5 to $6 to $1 range. Attachment 8 Our experience is similar with the exact leveraging ratio depending upon the circumstances of the individual developments.For instance it is much less expensive to develop a 1-bedroom 600 square foot apartment for occupancy by a senior citizen than it is to develop a 1,200 square foot 3-bedroom unit for family occupancy. If a site has buildings on it which have to be demolished or if in-place tenants require relocation the leveraging ratio will probably be slightly lower. However, given all the variables our leveraging ratio is generally in the 6:1 ratio, thus a $25,000 donation in effect builds an $150,000 rental unit which is on the high-end but is indicative of the approximate current cost of building an apartment rental unit in this county. That's the genesis of the $25,000 amount. History In 1986 Congress passed a revised Internal Revenue Service Act. That law included the provisions for the 'lax-credit program"which is virtually the only low-income housing development program left in the Federal government's arsenal. A couple of years later our non-profit affiliate, San Luis Obispo Non-Profit Housing Corporation, developed one of the first tax-credit developments in the country at 4035 Poinsettia Street. That development was built on land in the Edna-Islay area that was sold to us at just over $400,000,we built 20 family units on the site, thus our land costs were just over$20,000 per unit. A$400,000 Community Development Block Grant provided most of the funding for the site. Except for tax-credits no other subsidies were needed to support that development. In January of next year that development will have been occupied for 14 years and it has been successful from all vantage points, including financial. It has constantly operated at a"profit"and its mortgage today is less than $390,000. In other words it has been a wonderful investment for the non-profit, spinning off funds that have been used for other affordable developments in the city. That success led the non-profit Board to conclude that if we can find land at basically no cost to us via donation(Ironbark development), long-term lease (Marvin Garden's i.e. lease with the City) or purchase with use of Community Development Block Grant or other public or donated funds (Brizzolara Street, Pismo-Buchon and 433 Pacific Street), we can develop low-income housing in this city. That formula has worked remarkably well during the past 13 years. The non-profit has built, is building, is ready to build,or has acquired and rehabbed, over 200 units using the formula. And the per unit cost of the site has remained remarkably consistent in the $20,000-$25,000 range over the years. In fact our two latest acquisitions, sites at 2005 Johnson Avenue and 9750 El Camino Real in Atascadero,bring that point home. We acquired 2005 Johnson Avenue for$1 Attachment 8 million dollars and are proposing to build 43 units on the site, that's a land cost of $23,255 per unit. Within the last month we bought the Atascadero parcel cited above at $550,000. Our plans for the site call for the construction of 20 units, that's $27,250 per unit but that's for a prime site, directly across from the post office on the city's main commercial corridor. And while I don't want to belabor the point by presenting all the acquisition costs for all of our development's I can make that information available to you or anyone else if necessary. I think the above is pretty clear,but then again it's my business so I should understand it. The City Council has heard our story often enough that I think they understand how we develop new units, but I am not sure other City Advisory bodies have a clear understanding of our philosophy. I would be happy to answer any questions you have on the subject of financing affordable housing. George Moylan Sierra Vista Hospital - Preliminary Parking Analysis Attachment 8 Date: September 21, 2001 I Available Parking spaces Hospital Ownership Parking 415 I LDS Church 46 Lutheran Church 40 Total 501 ICurrent Parking Demand Spaces Hospital Ownership Parking 415 LDS Church 46 I Lutheran Church Estimated Use 5 Additional On Street Parking Use 20 Additional'Ram&Cram"` 10 ITotal Estimated Demand 496 Code Required-Parking (Ex. Uses) Square Foot #Beds Parking Ratio Spaces Hospital 151,000 202 1 per bed 202 Med. Office Building 42,000 n/a 1 per 200 s.f. 210 MRI 3,500 n/a 1 per 200 s.f. 18 Total Code(Existing) 196,500 202 n/a 430 Code Required Parking (Ex. + Planned) Square Foot #Beds Parking Ratio Spaces Ex. Hospital 151,000 202 1 per bed 202 Ex. Med.Office Building 42,000 n/a 1 per 200 s.f. 210 MRI 3,500 n/a 1 per 200 s.f. 18 Hospital Expansion Q�75d000 24 1 per bed 24 New Med.Office Building 45,000 n/a 1 per 200 s.f. 225 Total Code(Ex.+ Planned) 291,500 226 n/a 679 Estimated Total Need at Build-Out Square Foot # Beds Parking Ratio Spaces Existing Demand 196,500 202 n/a 496 New Hospital Need t--v -000 24 1 per bed 24 New MOB Need 45,000 n/a 1 per 200 s.f. 225 Total Need 745 Parking Provided by Type Spaces Hospital Surface Parking 319 Parking Structure 416 Lutheran Church 40 Total Provided ns Estimated Surplus Demand 745 Provided Total Surplus 775 30 "Ram&Cram"=parking in non-designated spaces (such as at ends of aisles) Date Printed: 9/20(2001 Prepared by: J.Knight - Attachment 9 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# BY: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: April 24, 2002 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Community Development Directoro FILE NUMBER: GP/R/U//ER 145-01 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1010 Murray Street (also 1043, 1045, and 1085 Foothill Blvd. and 41, 55 77 and139 Casa Street) SUBJECT: Review of a General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment changing the land use designation from High-Density Residential to Office; a use permit; and environmental review for a proposed expansion of Sierra Vista Hospital. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the general plan amendment and rezoning and of the use permit, subject to findings and conditions as noted in the resolution. BACKGROUND Situation Sierra Vista Hospital is proposing to construct an addition to the hospital; a parking garage; a central plant for mechanical equipment; and associated changes to surface parking and circulation. The hospital has applied for a general plan map amendment and rezoning; a use permit; architectural review; a lot line adjustment and environmental review. The Planning Commission reviews general plan and zoning amendments and makes a recommendation to the City Council, which takes a final action on such requests. In this case, the Planning Commission will also be making a recommendation to the Council regarding the project use permit and environmental review. Any Planning Commission comments regarding project design will be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission. Data Summary Address: 1010 Murray Street (also 1043, 1045, and 1085 Foothill Blvd. and 41, 55, 77 and139 Casa Street) Applicant: Tenet California Health Systems Representative: RRM Design Group Zoning: Office (0) and High-Density Residential (R-4) General Plan: Office and High-Density Residential Environmental status: On April 15, 2002, the CommunityDevelopment Director determined that the project qualifies for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact. Site description The hospital property is comprised of several lots with a total area of approximately 11 acres, A 'ST Attachment 9 PC meeting 4/24/02 GP/R/U/ER 145-01 Page 2 extending north from Murray Street to Foothill Boulevard and west from Casa Street to Stenner Creek and Santa Rosa Street. Surrounding uses include houses, apartments, and offices. Project Description Sierra Vista Hospital is proposing an 85,000 square foot, three-story addition to the existing structure to enable approximately 24 additional beds and expanded cardiac care services. To accommodate the existing and anticipated parking demand, a new garage is proposed at the comer of Casa Street and Foothill Boulevard with roughly 400 parking spaces. A central plant is proposed adjacent to the garage to house new mechanical equipment. Changes are also proposed to the on-site surface parking, circulation, and landscaping. To accommodate the new garage and central plant, three residential structures, containing a total of 4 dwellings, and one small office structure would be demolished. A demolition permit has already been issued for the church at 55 Casa Street. The hospital's master plan includes a future medical office building with 40,000 to 45,000 square feet. The medical office building is not part of this project, although it was taken into consideration in overall site planning and is specifically addressed in the project's traffic study. The applicant has applied for the following entitlements: a. General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to change the land use designation on a parcel at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard from High-Density Residential (R-4) to Office b. Use permit to allow non-residential development (a hospital addition and a multi-level parking garage) in the Office zone; and to allow a 35-foot tall parking structure where 25 feet would otherwise be the maximum allowed height c. Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure lot boundaries d. Architectural review of the proposed hospital and new parking garage with associated changes to surface parking layout and landscaping EVALUATION A. General Plan Consistency There are several General Plan policies that relate to the project's proposal to rezone a lot at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard from High-Density Residential to Office, and to remove 3 existing dwellings. General Plan policies tend to favor retention of residential uses and discourage conversion of residential uses to commercial ones. However, certain policies related to the location of medical offices would tend to support this proposal. The project is subject to review by the Planning Commission and City Council for a determination of general plan consistency. A r�-. PC meeting 4/24/02 Attachment 9 GP/R/U/ER 145-01 Page 3 The lot to be rezoned (1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard) is approximately 19,140 square feet in area. Roughly one fifth of that area is within the channel of Stenner Creek and, therefore, not part of the net site area used in density calculations. There are currently three unoccupied apartments in two structures on that site: two 2-bedroom apartments and one 1-bedroom apartment. All of these structures, along with a dentist office at the comer of Foothill and Casa would be demolished to make room for the proposed parking garage. Excluding the area of the site occupied by Stenner Creek, the maximum potential residential development on the lot to be rezoned is approximately 7.90 density units, which translates into 7 2-bedroom dwellings, or 11 1-bedroom dwellings, or 15 studio apartments. With the proposed project, both existing and potential housing development will be eliminated. Applicable goals and policies are listed below. LU 2.4.8: High-Density Residential Development should be primarily attached dwellings in two- or three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. Other uses which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such as group housing, parks, schools, and churches, may be permitted. Such development is appropriate near the college campus, the downtown core, and major concentrations of employment. The location of this R-4 parcel, which is close to Cal Poly and the hospital, is consistent with this policy, although the property is currently underdeveloped based on the description of appropriate R-4 development. LU 2.6.2: Boundary Adjustments The City may adjust land-use boundaries in a way that would reduce land designated as residential, only if A) A significant, long-term neighborhood or citywide need, which outweighs the preference to retain residential capacity, will be met, and; B) The need is best met at the proposed location and no comparable alternative exists. This policy offers the strongest justification for approving the rezoning request, when considered together with LUE policy 3.3.2. and Goals 11 and 24. LU 3.0.3: Residential Area Expansion of commercial and industrial uses into residential areas is prohibited. The area into which the hospital is expanding is not ideally suited as a residential area. The lot at the corner of Casa Street and Foothill Boulevard is zoned for office uses and a dentist office has been in operation since 1964. The lot which is proposed for rezoning is developed with three apartments in two structures, which have been vacant since September, 2000, and are in poor a, c'D Attachment 9 PC meeting 4/24/02 GP/R/U/ER 145-01 Page 4 condition. Foothill Boulevard, Stenner Creek, and the hospital poses significant barriers to continuity with other residential areas in the vicinity. LU 3.3.2: Office Locations C) Medical services should be near the hospitals. The project is clearly consistent with this policy. LUE Community Goals 11) Retain existing businesses and agencies, and accommodate expansion of existing businesses, consistent with other goals. Accommodating Sierra Vista's expansion plans would be consistent with this goal. 17) Preserve existing housing which is affordable to residents with very low, low, and moderate incomes. None of the dwellings to be demolished are part the City's formally designated affordable housing stock 18) Actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable to residents with very low, low, and moderate incomes, within existing neighborhoods and within expansion areas. Payment of inclusionary housing fees and a contribution toward replacement housing— in the form of donated land, actual housing construction or financial contribution - would improve consistency with this goal. 24) Serve as the county's hub for: county and state government; education; transportation; visitor information; entertainment; cultural, professional, medical, and social services; community organizations; retail trade. Accommodating Sierra Vista's expansion plans would be consistent with this goal. H 2.3.1: New Development Project Requirements The City shall require that new development projects include affordable housing units, dedicate land for affordable housing, or pay an in-lieu fee to assist in the development of affordable housing Citywide. Payment of inclusionary housing fees would ensure consistency with this goal. H 3.1.1: Conservation Conserve existing housing supply and prevent displacement of current occupants. a �L � Attachment 9 PC meeting 4/24/02 GP/R/U/ER 145-01 Page 5 Housing will be removed at this location. All affected dwelling units are currently vacant so displacement of current occupants will not occur. The applicants propose to mitigate the loss of housing through a payment to the Housing Authority. H 3.2.1: Demolition The City shall discourage the demolition of sound or rehabilitable existing housing. The structures at 1043 and 1045 Foothill are not in sound condition. H 3.2.3: Rehabilitation of Older Dwellings Since older dwellings can often be relocated and refurbished for considerably less cost than for a comparable new dwelling, and since older dwellings may offer spatial and material amenities unavailable in new dwellings, the City, in the interest of both economy and housing variety, will encourage rehabilitating such dwellings rather than demolition. Maintaining residential uses on the R4 lot would likely take the form of wholesale site redevelopment given the density allowed, so rehabilitation is not necessarily a likely scenario even if the residential zoning were retained. H 10.2.1: Residential and Employment Opportunities in the Housing Market Area The City will discourage activities which aggravate the imbalance between residential and employment opportunities among the communities in the housing market area. The project will add jobs and remove housing, and, therefore, needs to compensate for the loss of housing to be found consistent with this policy. This policy must be weighed against Land Use Element Goals 11 and 24 (above). H 10.2.2: Housing Demand Caused by Development The City will minimise expansion of housing demand caused by commercial and industrial development. Previous comment applies. H 10.2.3: In-Migration The City will seek to minimize expansion of housing demand and escalation of housing costs due to persons being enticed to move from other areas. Previous comment applies. H 11.1.1: Suitability Develop and retain housing on sites that are suitable for that purpose. This policy must be weighed against Land Use Element Goal 24 (above). Also see discussion under L U 3.0.3. i Attachment 9 PC meeting 4/24/02 GP/R/U/ER 145-01 Page 6 H 11.2.1: Residential Use Preference Where property is equally suited for commercial or residential uses, the City will give preference to residential use. Changes in land use designation from residential to non-residential will be discouraged. The Planning Commission and City Council need to decide whether the subject property is equally suited for residential and commercial use. Hospital expansion would be difficult to accommodate without encroaching into adjacent residential areas. Also see discussion under LU 3.0.3. regarding the suitability of the property along Foothill Boulevard for residential use. DWELLINGS AND DENSITY AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT Table 1 Lot.APN Address Existing Existing Density Potential Structure Units Density Units per APN 052-181-019 1043 Foothill 2-bedroom 1 apartment 052-181-019 1045 Foothill 2-bedroom 1 apartment 052-181-019 1045 '/ZFoothill 1-bedroom .66 apartment TOTAL: 2.66 7.9 Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the proposed change to the Land Use Element and Zoning maps consistent with General Plan policies related to the location of medical facilities and housing, provided that the project includes adequate mitigation for the loss of housing that will occur as a result of this project. The environmental initial study concludes that payment of inclusionary housing fees would not sufficiently mitigate the loss of existing and potential housing since this fee would apply even if housing were not lost as part of the project. The applicant has discussed offsetting the loss of housing by making a financial contribution to the City's Housing Authority. In those discussions, the Housing Authority Director indicated that an amount of $25,000 per dwelling might be appropriate since that sum is used by the Housing Authority to estimate the approximate cost of land per each affordable dwelling unit. Actual construction is typically financed with mortgages, rents, and tax credits. In determining adequate mitigation for the loss of housing, the Planning Commission and City Council should consider the following: Attachment 9 PC meeting 4/24/02 GPMMIER 145-01 Page 7 1. Is payment to the Housing Authority an acceptable means of mitigating loss of housing? 2. Is the amount identified reasonable under the circumstances? 3. How many dwellings should be compensated for: the actual number lost—3 —or the potential number lost—dwellings equivalent to roughly 8 density units—or something in between? B. Use Permit A use permit is required for the construction of non-residential structures or the conversion of residential structures to non-residential uses in the Office zone and for a 35-foot maximum height where 25 feet is otherwise the maximum height allowed. 1. Construction of non-residential structures: Use permit approval for this request must be based on the following findings per footnote 11 in Table 9 of the Zoning Ordinance: a. That the location, orientation, height, and mass of the new structure will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas. The proposed addition to the hospital, while tall, would be set near the center of the hospital property, well back from any street frontages. As such, it is not likely to significantly affect privacy for nearby residents. It is consistent with a previous height variance granted to the hospital with its addition. The garage will require careful treatment to avoid significantly affecting residents across Casa Street. This issue was discussed at length at a preliminary hearing by the Architectural Review Commission. The ARC provided the following direction regarding the garage: Redesign the parking garage to be more compatible with nearby residential structures and uses and to relate more strongly to pedestrians at the street level. Commissioners offered the following suggestions: Use the lower level of the garage facing Casa Street for hospital office uses. Reduce the massing of the building. Step back the upper level. Notch the Casa Street and Foothill Boulevard facades to provide additional setbacks of the wall plane, similar to the notchesat the corners. Provide more articulation to the facades. Vary the line of the parapet. Use more mullions. Trellis the blank walls. Use something other than wire mesh to cover the lower level openings. Redesign the garage to be less hard-edged and urban. ,4,bq Attachment 9 PC meeting 4/24/02 GP/R/U/ER 145-01 Page 8 Provide lighting details. Avoid light spill over and glare. b. The project's location and access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local streets in nearby residential neighborhoods. A traffic study has been prepared for this project. It also includes projected traffic volumes for a future medical office building. While the project will increase traffic on Murray Street and Casa Street, both of these streets already contain a mix of residential and office uses. The hospital addition would increase traffic by approximately 10%. With the future medical office building, traffic would increase roughly 20%over existing levels. The Public Works Department staff have reviewed the traffic study and project plans, and have recommended mitigation to reduce traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Please refer to the discussion under Transportation/Trac in the environmental initial study, and to the trip generation diagrams attached to the initial study. c. The project will include landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation from sites in nearby residential areas. Landscaping and setbacks along Casa Street will be subject to final review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. 2. Maximum height of 35 feet The zoning regulations allow a maximum height of 35 feet rather than 25 feet in the Office zone with use permit approval. This height exception is being requested for the parking garage in order to accommodate the additional parking deemed necessary for the hospital's master plan. Since lack of adequate parking has been a problem at this facility, staff supports the proposed exception. There is, however, a concern with the compatibility of preliminary garage designs with nearby residential uses, especially across Casa Street. Please refer to the above discussion describing the ARC'S direction after preliminary review of the garage design. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that use permit approval be contingent on architectural approval with particular attention to the criteria outlined for acceptable non- residential development in an Office zone which includes a mix of office and residential uses. �r-tPs� Attachment 9 PC meeting 4/24/02 GP/R/U/ER 145-01 Page 9 C. Parking Parking Summary Table 2 Existing/Proposed Zoning Requirements Existing/Proposed Development Parkin Existing 202 Bed Hospital 1 spaceibed= 202 Existing 42,000 SF Medical 1 space/200 SF= Office Building 210 Existing 3,500 SF 1 space/200 SF= O ----- _ MRI Office 18 TOTA- -L- -STIN-G------------- 43--0-R--E_-Q---UI-R---ED----------------46-1-E-3-EXI---STI---_G-------- EXIN Hospital Addition—24 beds 1 space/bed= 24 Future 45,000 SF Medical 1 space/200 SF= -------Office Building -------------------225----- --------------------------- TOTAL _____ _____TOTAL WITH PROJECT 679 735 PROPOSED* * The hospital also has a parking agreement with the Lutheran Church at 1010 Foothill Boulevard. While this would likely meet City standards for off-site parking, the current arrangement is informal in nature. An off-site parking agreement has not been officially recorded. Including parking available at the Lutheran Church, the total number of spaces available for the hospital and associated office uses would be 775. Field observations suggest that the City's parking requirement for hospitals is low. The requirement for medical offices, on the other hand, generally seems to be adequate. Existing parking exceeds City requirements by 30 cars (by 70 cars if the Lutheran Church site is fully used). Nevertheless, most people visiting the hospital would conclude that there is not enough parking. Alternative means of calculating required parking for hospitals in other jurisdictions include: 1 space per bed and 1 space per office (SLO County) and 1 space per bed and 1 space per 1000 square feet (Los Banos). Requiring 1.5 spaces per bed would be another option. The Planning Commission could specify a parking requirement greater than the minimum required by the City zoning regulations. Staff Recommendation: Staff understands that the project is proposed to be phased and that the first phase would be construction of the garage. Construction of the hospital addition should occur prior to construction of any future medical office building to enable time to evaluate adjusted parking demand resulting from the hospital addition. Any application for a future medical office building should include a parking study addressing existing demand at Sierra Vista; providing background information on hospital parking requirements from other Attachment 9 PC meeting 4/24/02 GP/R/U/ER 145-01 Page 10 comparable cities; and parking provided at other comparable hospitals. D. Environmental Impacts The environmental initial study is attached. Several issues are identified as potentially significant without mitigation. The most significant issues are aesthetics, cultural resources, land use policy consistency, and traffic. Less significant issues are related to air quality, biology, energy conservation, geology/soils, hydrology, noise, and utilities. Mitigation is recommended to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. A summary of mitigation is attached to the draft resolution for approval as Exhibit C. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item with direction regarding additional information needed to make a recommendation to the City Council. 2. Deny the project based on findings. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Other Department comments are incorporated into recommended mitigation and attached to the initial study. Attached: vicinity map aerial view of existing conditions conceptual site plan reduced elevations of hospital addition reduced elevations of garage applicant's parking calculations environmental initial study draft resolution for denial draft resolution for approval with exhibits G:WM/PC/145-01 Sierra Vista PC rpt II�IIIIIII Attachment 10 0101111111111111111 Al III city of sAn luis oaspo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 145-01 1. Project Title: Sierra Vista Hospital Master Plan 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner, (805) 781-7164 4. Project Location: 1010 Murray Street 5. Project.Sponsor's Name and Address: John Hollander, Tenet California Health Systems, 3765 S. Higuera Street, Suite 100, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Office and High-Density Residential 7. Zoning: Office (0) and High-Density Residential (R-4) 8. Description of the Project: The hospital is proposing an 85,000 square foot, three story addition to the existing structure to enable approximately 24 additional beds and expanded cardiac care services. To accommodate the existing and anticipated parking demand; a new garage is proposed with roughly 400 parking spaces. A central plant is proposed adjacent to the garage to house new mechanical equipment. Changes are also proposed to the on-site surface parking and circulation through the site. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The hospital property is comprised of several lots with a total area of approximately 11 acres, extending north from Murray Street to Foothill Boulevard and west from Casa Street to Stenner Creek and Santa Rosa Street. Surrounding uses include houses, apartments, and offices. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: a. General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to change.the land use designation on a parcel at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard from High-Density Residential (R-4) to Office b. Use permit to allow new hospital development and a multi-level parking garage in the Office zone; and to allow a 35-foot tall parking structure where 25 feet would otherwise be the maximum allowed height c. Lot Line Adjustment to reconfigure lot boundaries �� 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. n Attachment 10 d. Architectural review of an addition to the hospital and of a new parking garage with associated changes to surface parking layout and landscaping 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: State Office of Safety, Health, Planning and development (OSHPD) CTI OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2. INITIAL STUDY ENvIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 f ^ Attachment 10 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 Aesthetics X Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials X Air Quality X Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation&Traffic X Biological Resources X Land Use and Planning X Utilities and Service Systems X Cultural Resources X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance X Energy and Mineral X Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES 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. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE X The project requires review by one or more State agencies such as Cal Trans or the California Department of Fish and Game and is to be sent to the State Clearinghouse for routing. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBlspo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 A9D I ' Attachment 10 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, X there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re aced. 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 "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. June 6,2002 Signature Date Ronald Whisenand,Deputy Community Development.Director for John Mandeville,CommunitV.Development Dir. Printed Name CITY OF SAN Luis OBISFO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 S,- 91 I Attachment 10 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. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question. 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) of the California Administrators Code. 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. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures, For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INRIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 y� r� oL- Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Supportirtiy ,nformation Sources sources Pow..:.Jy Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 145 01 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings X within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? Scenic Corridors The City's Circulation Element identifies Santa Rosa Street and Foothill Boulevard as roads with moderate scenic value. The hospital addition will be visible from Santa Rosa Street. Portions of the addition will also be visible from Murray and Casa Streets.The hospital addition will be set well back from Santa Rosa Street,and separated from the street by a creek lined with mature Eucalyptus and Sycamore trees. The garage will be prominently located at the comer of Casa Street and Foothill Boulevard with a setback of roughly 20 feet(less in some areas and more in others).Both structures are taller than the 25-foot height limit usually applied in the office zone. The garage is proposed to be 35 feet tall.The hospital addition is proposed to be 65 feet tall.A variance was previously approved to allow the hospital to be 65-feet tall in 1970(V0190). The Open Space Element states that the City should develop specific setbacks, height limitations, lot coverage standards, architectural standards,and landscape standards for properties within scenic corridors to ensure view protection. (p. 75,2,B) These aspects of the project will be reviewed as part of the architectural review process. The proposed parking garage will block views southeast towards the Santa Lucia Range. However,the current views are broken up by urban development along Foothill Blvd. The addition of the garage will still maintain view corridors along Foothill and therefore should not be considered significant,provided the Architectural Review Commission grants approval. The Public Works Department is recommending that the utilities along the project frontages be undergrounded, which would remove an existing adverse visual impact. Conclusion: Potentially significant without mitigation. Hospital Addition The existing hospital building has two distinct components: the older single story structure built in the late 1950's and the multi-story portion that was added in the early 1970's. Architecturally, they are different in terms of their design and use of materials. The single story structure has a predominantly brick exterior. The exterior of the multi-story structure is predominantly plaster. Paint colors and plaster arches have been used to provide some overall continuity. The proposed addition will introduce yet another architectural style. No exterior changes are proposed to the existing buildings except as necessary to make an internal connection with the new addition. Overall design continuity is encouraged by the City's architectural guidelines, which state that "different structures and parts of structures should go well together. When new construction is proposed near existing structures, the new work should harmonize with the old or the old should be remodeled to harmonize with the new."(p.19) This issue will be addressed as part of the architectural review process. Conclusion: Potentially significant without mitigation. Garage The proposed scale and massing of the 400-car garage contrasts with the existing visual character of the streetscape along Casa Street. Currently, structures along Casa Street in the vicinity of the proposed garage are not more than two stories in height and residential in character. To avoid degrading the existing visual character of this area, careful attention to scale, massing,articulation,materials,colors,and lighting will be necessary. This issue will be addressed as part of the architectural CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO B INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 a,-rl3 Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting ,,00rmation Sources Sources Pots...._, Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 145-01 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated review process. Conclusion: Potentially significant without mitigation. Tree Removal Another aspect of the project with potential visual impacts is the proposed alteration to parking and circulation areas. To improve on-site circulation and maximize surface parking, roughly 100 trees would be removed. Although replacement planting is proposed,it will be years before the new trees achieve the same size canopy as some of the large trees proposed to be removed. The City's architectural guidelines state that healthy existing vegetation should be kept and incorporated into site and planting plans if they improve the site's appearance or enhance its proposed use.(p. 19) Applicable general plan polices include Land Use Element polices 2.2.2, 2.2.4 and 2.2.9 — which address non-residential development adjacent to residential development and large parking lots. Conclusion:Potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. The project is subject to architectural review. To minimize visual impacts to a less-than-significant level, the following mitigation is recommended: Mitigation: • Undergrounding of existing overhead utilities along the project frontages shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. • Submit a revised circulation and parking plan which reduces the number of trees to be removed to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. • Provide a visual simulation of the hospital addition and the parking garage to assist the Architectural Review Commission in their evaluation of views of the project from Santa Rosa,Murray,and Casa Streets and from Foothill Boulevard. • Design modifications and additions to the hospital building to provide architectural continuity among the older and newer components of the building to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. • To screen and soften views of the parking garage and the parking lot along Murray Street, use any combination of mounding (minimum of 3 feet in height), walls, raised planters and dense plantings of shrubs and trees to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. • Use sodium lights in the parking structure. Project lighting and photometrics shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission with the objective of not creating a substantial new source of lighting or glare. All new light sources proposed with this project shall be shielded from off-site views,especially in the vicinity of the proposed garage. • Design the parking garage to be compatible with nearby residential structures and uses and to be pedestrian friendly at the street level to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. • Screen outdoor and roof-mounted mechanical equipment from on-site and off-site views to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 2 Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps L X CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 n 4 Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Suppohinb .,iformation Sources Sources Po. y Po[entially LessI%m No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 145-01 Issues Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Conclusion: The project is in an urban area and involves redevelopment of an already developed site. It is not zoned for agriculture. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 1,5,9 X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? This projected was reviewed by the Air Pollution Control District. A letter from Melissa Guise,Air Quality Specialist,dated October 18,2001,outlines potential air quality impacts and recommended mitigation. San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PMIo(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter)air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 1998 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. Short-term Impacts Although construction activities may not exceed the District's thresholds for emissions, they can generate large amounts of fugitive dust. The use of diesel equipment during construction raises a concern since the California Air Resources Board has listed diesel particulate exhaust as a toxic air contaminant with no identified threshold level below which there are no significant impacts. The use of catalytic soot filters or an oxidation catalyst is recommended for use on the two pieces of diesel equipment projected to generate the most emissions. Asbestos To enable construction of the proposed parking garage, a church,and four other structures(originally built for residential use) will be demolished. Demolition activities can also have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper demolition and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). During demolition or remodeling of existing buildings and utility removal/relocation,asbestos containing materials could be encountered. Therefore,this project is subject to the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAP),which includes but is not limited to: 1) notification requirements to the District, 2)asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and, 3)applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. The City does not issue demolition permits without approval by the Air Pollution Control District.No further mitigation is recommended to address this issue. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001' O�[r 1 Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting :.,formation Sources Soap Potein. , Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 145-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated Long-term Operational Impacts Without mitigation, the project has the potential to substantially exceed the District's Tier Two (25 lbs. per day) CEQA significance threshold for operational phase emissions. Mitigation is recommended to reduce these to a less than significant level. Vehicle Emission Impacts Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant source of PMIo. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. The APCD recommends that site development include mitigation measures to encourage transportation alternatives to the single occupant vehicle and make the project attractive to bicyclists and pedestrians. Energy Conservation Cumulatively, energy efficiency reduces the demand for energy production and therefore, reduces emissions from power plants. For this reason, the APCD recommends that energy efficiency be part of a project's design and construction. See mitigation recommended under Energy and Mineral Resources. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation: Construction impacts • Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. • All dirt stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed. • Landscaping shall be installed within 30 days following completion of any soil disturbing activities. • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. • All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting,or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpavedsurface at the construction site. • All trucks hauling din,sand,soil,or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard(minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer)in accordance with CVC Section 23114. • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible. • Use catalytic soot filters on the two (2) pieces of diesel equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Where the catalytic soot filters are determined to be unsuitable, install and use an oxidation catalyst. Suitability is to be determined by an independent California Licensed Mechanical Engineer who will submit for District approval a Suitability Report identifying and explaining the particular constraints to using the preferred catalytic soot filter. This information shall be included in the contractor bid package to ensure these measures get incorporated into the project. Operational and Transportation related Impacts CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST/2001 1 I 1 9 Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting'...rormation Sources Sources Pots,,. Potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 145 O1 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated • Since the project is located on an established transit route, a transit turnout and a shelter shall be constructed with direct pedestrian access to and from the facility. • Provide on-site bicycle parking for both short- and long-term use. The location of such bicycle parking shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. • Provide on-site eating,refrigeration and food vending facilities to reduce lunchtime trips. • Provide preferential carpool parking. • Provide shower and locker facilities to encourage employees to bike and/or walk to work, typically one shower and three lockers for every 25 employees. • Provide incentives to employees to carpool/vanpool or take public transportation. • Provide on-site banking or ATM services. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1,4,2, X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a 9,11 candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means. Trees The project proposes to remove roughly 100 trees as a result of construction and reconfiguring drive aisles and parking. The City Arborist has reviewed the tree removal plan and made recommendations for retaining certain trees and for replacement planting. These recommendations will be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission for review. They include retaining the following trees: • the rusty-leaf fig(40-inch Ficus)at the Deseret entrance to the site.This tree would qualify as a heritage tree. • the 30-inch Ficus near the entrance to the single story portion of the hospital • all Oaks and Sycamores within the creek setback • the three Ficus trees in the parking lot facing Murray Street • the 10-inch and the 7-inch Camphor trees in the parking lot facing Murray Street • the Maple trees in the stand alone parking lot on Casa Street • the 8-inch and 12-inch Pines(Stone Pines?)along Murray Street CnY OF SAN Luis OBisPO 10 INmAL STUDY ENviFtONmENTAL CHEcKLisT 2001 a- r) 9 - Attachment i u Issues, Discussion and Supportln, .,tformation Sources Sources Pow.. .y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 145-01 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Stenner Creek The Stenner Creek riparian habitat tuns along the western property line. The project application includes a request for a creek setback exception. Existing on-site development encroaches into roughly 30% of the required creek setback area. Proposed development would reduce that encroachment to approximately 7%. Development cannot be completely removed from the setback due to the location of the existing main entrance to the hospital and an existing drive aisle past that entrance. Plans could be modified to exclude some of the paving proposed for the new entrance drop off, but that would require a reduction in the square footage of the proposed addition or result in a more awkward circulation pattern. The creek area is potential habitat for red-legged frogs, two-striped garter snakes, and southwestern pond turtle.These are all aquatic special status species. A survey conducted for the adjacent Foothill Boulevard bridge replacement project did not encounter any of these species.However,southern steelhead are known to inhabit this stretch of Stenner Creek. No significant adverse impacts to the creek are anticipated as long as no work is done in or near the creek with the exception of a small area of paving proposed across from the proposed entrance to the hospital addition. Mitigation is recommended under Hydrology to require filtration of storm water leaving the site,which eventually empties into the creek system. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation: Project grading and construction shall not encroach into the creek setback area as required by City Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.025, except as permitted by the Architectural Review Commission to allow removal of existing encroachments and to construct the accessway near the main entrance. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall mark the edge of grading with rigid fencing to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify the City when such fencing is in place and to schedule an inspection. Trees identified by the Architectural Review Commission to be preserved shall be clearly marked on grading and construction plans. The applicant shall submit a tree preservation agreement for review and approval by the Community Development Director.The agreement shall be secured by a bond in the amount determined by the City Arborist. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? Historic Resources The two residential structures at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard are estimated by the County Assessor's Office to have been constructed in the 1940's. It is possible they were constructed earlier. They are both modest, flat-roofed, two-story structures with wood windows,plaster exterior finish and clay tiles on the roof parapet and on shed roofs over small additions that were made over time. The structures are not in an historical district and are not on the City's list of historic properties. The chain of title does not indicate that any persons of historic significance have been associated with the houses. At this time they are in a deteriorated condition. While their proposed demolition raises issues related to the City's housing supply, demolition would not result in a significant adverse impact to historical resources. Conclusion: Less than significant. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 1NrnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLJesT 2001 �/ rr)� Attachment 10 f -"" Sources Potu... ' Poteuflall less Than No Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..ifomtation Sources i r Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 145 01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Archaeological Resources Along Foothill Boulevard, the project site contains part of a large, late prehistoric to historic era Chumash settlement,known as the Mustang Village site (CA-SLO-44). Previous sub-surface testing along Stenner Creek performed by Ethan Bertrando also identified some less significant cultural materials (CA-SLO-1738/H). Development of the garage will impact a known archaeological site. Development elsewhere on the hospital campus also has the potential to encounter archaeological resources. Archaeologist, Thor Conway, completed a considerable amount of archaeological sub-surface testing at the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center, and developed the mitigation recommendations below. These recommendations are based upon development details provided in the document Sierra Vista Hospital Expansion, Sept. 21, 2001, RRM Design Group. The three archaeological management reports prepared by him are incorporated herein by reference. According to Thor Conway, there are three aspects to the treatment of cultural resources for this project: A. Mitigation of impacts to archaeological site CA-SLO-44 located at the northeast corner of the property. B. Mitigation of impacts to a portion of site CA-SLO-1738/H located at the west-central portion of the property. C. Archaeological monitoring of project areas where cultural resources can occur. Conclusion:Potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation: Mitigation For Archaeological Site CA-SLO-44 IA—Archaeological testing determined that the archaeological site located on the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center property,CA-SLO-44, covers about 336 square meters. It is recommended that mitigation excavations recover a 10% sample of the archaeological site, since unavoidable impacts from the development will destroy this cultural resource. A 10% sample of scientifically excavated material would include 33.6 square meters extending to the depth of the site.A report will describe the scientific results of this mitigation work. 1B—The mitigation excavation units shall be located in the lawn areas most suitable for excavation at 1045 Foothill Blvd. and the lawn at the corner of Casa Street and Foothill Blvd. IC—Demolition of the house at 1045 Foothill Blvd., the orthodontist's office on Casa Street and the Robinson house at the corner or Casa Street and Foothill Blvd.cannot be done until archaeological mitigation excavations are completed. 1D—Removal of trees in the vicinity of archaeological site CA-SLO-44 cannot be done until archaeological mitigation excavations are completed. IE—All grading and mechanical excavation of native soils that contain materials from archaeological site CA-SLO-44 must be monitored by archaeological and Native American monitors until culturally sterile sub-soils are reached. 1F—All excavated soils from site CA-SLO-44 must be transported to a location approved by the city and the project archaeologist. A supplemental archaeological site record form will be produced to document the re-deposition of these archaeological soils. Mitigation For Archaeological Site CA-SLO-1738/H 2A—Further sub-surface testing shall be done at the northern portion of archaeological site CA-SLO-1738/H on the Sierra CITY OF SAN Luis OsisPo 12 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKUST.2001 a r� Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporting ...formation Sources Sources Potent Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 145 01 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Vista Regional Medical Center property.This testing will produce a report with planning recommendations for the protection of the cultural resource. 2B=Design of the Medical Office Building shall include measures to protect the intact portion of site CA-SLO-1738/H if possible pending the results of additional sub-surface testing. Project plans for this building shall be reviewed by the project archaeologist with mitigation recommendations. 2C—All construction activity such as grading or excavation for utilities in the vicinity of site CA-SLO-1738/H shall be monitored by an archaeologist and Native American. 2D—In the event that significant cultural materials from site CA-SLO-1738/H are discovered during monitoring, provisions must be made for their recovery as specified in the City Of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center Expansion Archaeological Monitoring 3A—Many areas of the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center Expansion require archaeological monitoring due to the potential for cultural resources in intact or disturbed contexts across the property. Impacts include but are not limited to grading,excavation,drainage improvements, landscaping, underground utility trenching,removal of parking lots and fill soils and related activities. As construction schedules are determined, the developer and contractors shall provide scheduling and identify areas where impacts will occur for review by the project archaeologist.The project archaeologist will then determine whether monitoring is required.Not all areas will require continuous monitoring. 3B—Provisions shall be made for the project archaeologist to review the final draft of,project plans and any changes in the development that may occur prior to building permit submittal. These reviews will identify any potential effects to heritage resources. 3C—Demolition of the former Mormon Church requires archaeological and Native American monitoring until all native soils are removed or impacted by demolition due to its proximity within ten meters of site CA-SLO-44. Testing adjacent to the church building yielded negative results. No further heritage studies or testing are required for this demolition to proceed. 3D—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all areas where encroachment of the creek setback will occur. 3E—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor removal of the parking lot at 55 Casa Street (former Mormon Church). 317—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor changes to the hospital entrance area and parking areas near Murray Street. 3G—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all excavation and grading in the parking lot area between the existing hospital and Stenner Creek. 3H—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor 0 excavations and related impacts in the vicinity of Deseret Place. 31—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all underground utility work including but not limited to water, sewer,gas lines,storm drains and electric cables. 3J—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor excavations and grading for the Cardiac Institute building. 3K—An archaeologist will review all tree removal plans and determine whether monitoring is required. If required, an archaeologist and Native American will monitor this work. CRY OF SAN Luis OetsPo 13 INMAL STUDY ENv1RONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Qr � Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporti y ...formation Sources Sources Pca._.. Potentially Less nan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#145-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 3L—An archaeologist will review all landscaping improvement plans to determine whether monitoring is required. 3M—Archaeological monitoring will include provisions for evaluation of cultural resources discovered during construction as set forth in the City Of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. 3N—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor removal of the Washingtonian palms at 55 Casa Street since this area lies within fifty meter of a known archaeological site bound 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1,5,6 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? The following program is from the Energy Conservation Element: EC 1.3.25:Encouragement of Energy Efficient Design The Architectural Review Commission will play an expanded role in encouraging energy-efficient project design by requiring designers to make conscious choices and to justify proposals involving building location, orientation, and form, as well as landscaping type and location. The goal of such review would be projects which make maximum use of solar exposure, natural ventilation, and passive means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain comfort. To these ends, ARC guidelines and information submittal requirements will assist applicants in preparing more self-sufficient projects. A hospital is an energy intensive use as demonstrated in part by the amount of floor and roof area proposed for mechanical equipment in addition to the air handlers and duct work recently installed on the roof and down the southeastern fagade of the hospital. Project design shall involve careful review of energy calculations to maximize energy savings beyond the California energy code minimums as recommended by the Air Pollution Control District. This would likely have long-term operational cost savings benefit to the hospital. Conclusion:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation: Energy Efficiency Measures • Increase energy efficiency at least 20%beyond Title 24 requirements. • Plant shade tree along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. • Plant shade tree in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. • Use double-paned,low E windows. • Use energy-efficient lighting; heating, ventilation, air conditioning and cooling; water heating; and wall and ceiling insulation. • Plans submitted for architectural review shall indicate what energy efficiency measures will be incorporated into the project design. CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 4,(D Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Support,, y ,nfonnation Sources Sources P(,. - .,y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 145-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 7. GEOLOGY AND SOII.S Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse I,4,7 effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? H. Strong seismic ground shaking? X III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidance, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? Three geotechnical investigation reports were prepared for the future medical office building, the parking structure, and the addition to the hospital respectively by GSI Soils Inc. They are incorporated herein by reference. Fourteen borings were performed and analyzed. Free ground water was encountered at depths of 13 to 26 feet. Underlying soils have a high potential for settlement and are moderate to highly expansive. The reports conclude that the site is suitable for the proposed development subject to certain methods of site preparation and construction outlined in the reports. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation: Construction documents shall be in accordance with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation reports (project number 1-0649)prepared by GSI Soils Inc. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the roject: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 9 X though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety CITY OF SAN LUIS OelsPo is INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLlsT 2001 a r-� Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporti„y ...formation Sources sources Po,....... potentially Less'Man No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#145-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation per? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? A potential hazard associated with hospital development is the handling and transport of bio-hazardous waste. This is highly regulated by the State and Federal government.The proposed addition is not anticipated to result in any significant hazardous impacts. The following was provided by the City's Fire department staff for informational purposes: The State of California, Department of Health Services, and the Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) are the main regulatory bodies for bio-waste. Regulations are in place to track and monitor these wastes from their source to final disposition. The tracking process includes a generator-initiated (hospital) tracking form, required management standards for segregation,treatment,packaging,labeling,marking,storage,transport and disposal of bio-waste. Bio waste that is generated in a hospital has specific handling, treatment and storage requirements. Workers handling bio- waste must wear protective clothing. Some bio-waste is given a level of treatment in a hospital before disposal. This commonly includes autoclaving,bleaching and heat-treating. In a hospital bio-waste must be packaged in specific ways. Standard, non-sharp bio-waste goes into double-bagged red bags labeled "bio-hazardous waste". If the materials are considered "sharps", like needles, glass tubes, etc.,they will go into a red hard plastic box that is marked "bio-hazardous waste". Both of these types of bio-waste packages then go into a clearly marked, rigid, leak-proof container with a sturdy leak-proof lid within the hospital. These containers are kept in a room specifically designated for bio-waste. The room must be secured from the general public and from animals. There are also specific limits on length of storage time for bio-waste in a hospital(in days). The transportation of bio-waste (from generator to treatment/disposal facility) is regulated by the DOT. The DOT has requirements for shipping, including packaging, labeling, containment, documenting, tracking, etc for bio-waste. Bio-waste must be transported to a licensed treatment facility by a licensed hazardous waste transporter (shipper). There are several types of treatments available for bio-waste, with incineration being the most common type of disposal. Some hospitals are even licensed to operate their own incinerators. Hospital incinerators are regulated by US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Conclusion: Less than significant. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 4,9 X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 16 INmAL STLDY ENVIRONMENTAL C.HECKusr 2001 D - S3 Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Support,.., information Sources Sources Po,... .iy Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 145 O1 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as trapped on X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation reap? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X The project will not significantly increase runoff. Most areas to be developed with structures are currently paved. Portions of the on-site storm drains will be abandoned and replaced with new storm drains. With the exception of a small area near the existing hospital entrance,no work is likely to occur within 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,mitigation is recommended. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation: Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed in the new garage and at each on-site drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek through the storm water system. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to see that the such devices are regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1 X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservation plans? There are several general plan policies that relate to the project's proposal to rezone a lot at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard from High-Density Residential to Office, and to remove 4 existing dwellings (three on the lot proposed for rezoning and one on the adjacent lot,zoned Office,at the corner of Casa Street and Foothill Boulevard.)General plan policies tend to favor retention of residential uses and discourage conversion of residential uses to commercial ones. However,certain policies related to the location of medical offices would tend to support this proposal.The project is subject to review by the Planning Commission and City Council for a determination of general plan consistency. The lot to be rezoned (1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard) is approximately 19,140 square feet in area. Roughly one fifth of that area is within the channel of Stenner Creek and,therefore,not part of the net site area used in density calculations. There are currently three unoccupied apartments in two structures on that site — two 2-bedroom apartments and one 1-bedroom apartment. All of these structures,along with a dentist office at the coiner of Foothill and Casa would be demolished to make room for the proposed parking garage. Excluding the area of the site occupied by Stenner Creek, the maximum potential residential development on the lot to be CrrY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 17 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKusT'2001 Q.94 Attachment 10 . .__.:_ PP d Sources Si f Potentially Less Than No Issues, Discussion and Sti oi,. . ..,rormation Sources �� r gni cant Significant Significant Impact ER# 145-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated rezoned is approximately 7.90 density units, which translates into 7 2-bedroom dwellings, or 11 1-bedroom dwellings, or 15 studio apartments.With the proposed project,both existing and potential housing development will be eliminated. The project is subject to the inclusionary housing ordinance which requires a percentage of the project valuation to be paid toward affordable housing construction through the donation of land, actual construction of dwellings, or payment of an in- lieu fee.While this will help to offset the loss of housing, it would be required even if no housing were removed, and so does not represent sufficient mitigation.To more directly address the loss of housing the hospital has had discussions with the City Housing Authority regarding an appropriate payment to the Housing Authority as a means of mitigating the loss of housing.. The amount identified was $25,000 per unit which represents the Housing Authority's cost of land per unit. Acquisition of land is often the biggest challenge in construction of affordable housing. Actual construction is much more easily financed through mortgages,rents,and tax credits. The Planning Commission and City Council will need to determine whether the proposed arrangement with the Housing Authority will adequately offset the loss of housing so that the project can be found consistent with the general plan. The following general plan policies will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in their review of the project: LU 2.6.2: Boundary Adjustments The City may adjust land-use boundaries in a way that would reduce land designated as residential,only if: A)A significant,long-term neighborhood or citywide need,which outweighs the preference to retain residential capacity, will be met,and; B)The need is best met at the proposed location and no comparable alternative exists. LU 3.0.3: Residential Area Expansion of commercial and industrial uses into residential areas is prohibited. LU 3.3.2:Office Locations C)Medical services should be near the hospitals. LUE GOALS 11)Retain existing businesses and agencies, and accommodate expansion of existing businesses,consistent with other goals. 17)Preserve existing housing which is affordable to residents with very low,low,and moderate incomes. 18)Actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable to residents with very low,low,and moderate incomes,within existing neighborhoods and within expansion areas. 24)Serve as the county's hub for:county and state government;education;transportation;visitor information;entertainment; cultural,professional,medical,and social services;community organizations;retail trade. H 2.3.1: New Development Project Requirements The City shall require that new development projects include affordable housing units, dedicate land for affordable housing, or pay an in-lieu fee to assist in the development of affordable housing Citywide. H 3.1.1: Conservation Conserve existing housing supply and prevent displacement of current occupants. H 3.2.1:Demolition The City shall discourage the demolition of sound or rehabilitable existing housing. H 3.2.3: Rehabilitation of Older Dwellings Since older dwellings can often be relocated and refurbished for considerably less cost than for a comparable new dwelling, and since older dwellings may offer spatial and material amenities unavailable in new dwellings, the City, in the interest of both economy and housing variety,will encourage rehabilitating such dwellings rather than demolition. Crnr OF SAN Luis Oatspo 18 INITIAL STUDY EWIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 20001 p��K Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Supporttiq, information Sources Sources Pote,... iy Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 145-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated H 10.2.1: Residential and Employment Opportunities in the Housing Market Area The City will discourage activities which aggravate the imbalance between residential and employment opportunities among the communities in the housing market area. H 10.2.2:Housing Demand Caused by Development The City will minimize expansion of housing demand caused by commercial and industrial development. H 10.2.3: In-Migration The City will seek to minimize expansion of housing demand and escalation of housing costs due to persons being enticed to move from other areas. H 11.1.1:Suitability Develop and retain housing on sites that are suitable for that purpose. H 11.2.1: Residential Use Preference Where property is equally suited for commercial or residential uses, the City will give preference to residential use. Changes in land use designation from residential to non-residential will be discouraged. Conclusion: Potentially significant without mitigation. Mitigation: The applicant shall provide for replacement housing in a form acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council to offset the loss of housing that will occur as a result of this project. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise 1,12, X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 13 Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase m X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? A noise study was prepared for this project by Dohn Associates and is attached to the initial study. Based on readings along the westerly property line, the report estimates a noise exposure of 65 dBA Ltq/La. at 200 feet from the centerline of Santa Rosa Street. This distance corresponds to the location of the fagade of the proposed addition to the hospital. The report makes recommendations for reducing interior noise levels to 45 dBA—the maximum indoor noise exposure allowed for noise sensitive uses due to transportation sources, according to Table 1 of the City's Noise Element. Indoor noise levels will be reviewed and approved as part of the State permitting process. Construction related noise is subject to compliance with the City's noise ordinance. Of greater concern with this project is the potential noise exposure from proposed new mechanical equipment.To ensure that generators and outdoor mechanical and electrical equipment conforms with standards established in the Noise Element and with the City's noise ordinance,mitigation is recommended. CrrY OF SAN Luis OBIspo 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLisT�2001 1 r9to - . Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Supportlt�g ,.aorrnation Sources Sources Potc.w. Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 145 01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Conclusion: Potentially significant without mitigation. Mitigation: All on-site generators shall be contained within an engineered enclosure with adequate intake and exhaust silencers to ensure compliance with City policies and standards for noise exposure. All outdoor mechanical equipment shall be screened with a solid barrier or other device such as acoustical louvers to reduce noise levels in compliance with City policies and standards for noise exposure. All exterior mechanical equipment proposed as part of this project shall be selected,configured,located,and housed in such a way as to ensure compliance with City policies and standards for noise exposure. Construction activity shall comply with the City's noise ordinance in terms of noise levels and times of construction. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1 X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Housing See discussion and recommended mitigation under Land Use. PPo ulation The hospital currently employees 750 people, including part-time and shift workers. Hospital administration estimates that the hospital will employee 1,100 people in five years, or 350 new employees. A certain percentage of those new employees may be looking to re-locate to San Luis Obispo from their current residence outside the City. Others may simply transfer from existing jobs in the City. It is difficult to identify what these percentages might be. In so far as employment opportunities attract new residents to the city,some additional demand for housing is generated. Creating additional jobs within the City also creates additional housing demand. And an increase in housing demand tends to decrease housing affordability. Land Use Element policy 1.4 Jobs/Housing Relationship states that the gap between housing demand and supply should not increase. One mechanism for alleviating the jobsthousing imbalance and decreased affordability is the City's inclusionary housing requirement. This program is designed to increase the supply of affordable housing by requiring most new residential and commercial development projects to include affordable housing,pay an in-lieu housing fee,or dedicate real property for affordable housing. Conclusion:Less than significant. Additional jobs are not likely to significantly increase the City's population and the project is subject to the inclusionary housing ordinance. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 9 X b) Police protection? X CRY OF SAN LUIS Oetsao 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 t7( O t Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Supportn , .nformation Sources sources Pow.. ..y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER# 145-01 Mitigation Incorporated c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X f) Other public facilities? X Fire: Compliance with the City fire code will require looping water lines through the site and possibly some additional fire hydrants. Trenching required to make these improvements may encounter archaeological resources. Mitigation recommended under Cultural Resources should reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Police:The City police force is adequately staffed to provide service to this site. Schools: The project will be subject to payment of school fees. Parks: The project is not anticipated to have significant adverse impacts on City parks. Roads: See discussion under Transportation. Conclusion:Less than significant. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 1 X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Conclusion:No impacts to recreational facilities are anticipated as a result of this project. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,10,9 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? A traffic analysis report was prepared by Higgins Associates for this project. It is herein incorporated by reference together with comments from RRM Design Group(December 20,2001)and from the City Public Works Department. The traffic study estimates that the project will generate roughly 2,944 daily trips with 102 trips generated during the AM peak hour and 154 trips generated during the PM peak hour. Key intersections affected by the estimated increase in traffic are Santa Rosa and Murray Streets; Santa Rosa Street and Foothill Boulevard; Foothill Boulevard and Casa Street; and Foothill and California Boulevards. Restriping to create new turn lanes on Northbound Casa Street, installation of a signal at the Casa / Foothill intersection, and synchronization of signals are the primary mitigation measures identified in the study. An improved transit stop along Foothill Boulevard and long-term bicycle parking will be provided to encourage alternative transportation. Public Works Department comments also recommend use of public transit passes for employees and a parking CITY OF SAN Huls OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 a r/11/ >- Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and SUppOr.—,o',dormation Sources Sources PL Potentially [ess Tnan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 145-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated demand management plan. Regarding the proposed signalization of the Casa/Foothill intersection, staff is concerned that signalizing the Casa/Foothill intersection may create a more hazardous condition and decrease the operational efficiency of the Foothill corridor. Current collision history indicates that rear-end collisions on Foothill are the most prevalent type of collisions at the Casa/Foothill intersection. Signalization of this intersection would likely increase the occurrence of these types of collisions. The Foothill/ Santa Rosa (Hwy 1) signalized intersection, the Union Pacific railroad crossing and the Foothill / California signalized intersection are in close proximity to the Casa/Foothill intersection. Because of this close proximity, the signalization of the Casa/Foothill intersection will effect the operation of the others. The City Public Works Department recommends against installing a signal at the Casa/Foothill intersection at this time. Condusion:Potentially significant without mitigation. Mitigation: To reduce traffic impacts to a less than significant impact, the following shall be incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director: • The project shall include restriping Casa Street to remove existing parking and create a left and right turning lane onto Foothill. • The applicant shall provide subsidized public transit for employees to the satisfaction of the City Transit Manager for a minimum period of 5 years. • Bike lockers, bike racks, and designated shower facilities shall be shown on plans submitted to the City and to the State for a building permit to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. • The project shall include relocation of Murray Street entrance further from the intersection with Santa Rosa Street. • Since the project is located on an established transit route, a transit turnout and new shelter are necessary. Direct pedestrian access to and from the shelter facility shall be constructed by the applicant. The shelter must meet City standards (to the satisfaction of the transit manager) and shall be delivered to the City' s Corporation Yard. The shelter and transit turnout will be installed by the City as part of the Foothill Bridge project.. • The applicant shall dedicate necessary right of way (or an easement) along Foothill Boulevard for the new bus turnout, including an easement for the transit shelter,prior to issuance of any City building or grading permits,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. • The applicant's traffic engineer shall work with Caltrans and the City of San Luis Obispo to improve signal operations at the Murray / Santa Rosa (Hwy 1) intersection. This may include a split phase operation to improve westbound egress from the Murray onto Santa Rosa. • The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City and shall post a"Letter of Credit"or other cash equivalent surety to guarantee design and construction of a traffic signal and signal interconnect(s)at the intersection of Foothill Blvd.and Casa Street. • The agreement shall be effective for three(3) years after completion of the proposed Sierra Vista Hospital addition and shall include the following requirements: • The owner/applicant shall provide periodic monitoring of the intersection and/or nearby traffic operations, to determine the possible need for a traffic signal,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST'2001 a QJ Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Suppon...y .oformation Sources Sources Po._. .y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 145-01 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated • The monitoring and resultant reports shall be prepared by the owner/applicant's traffic engineer and delivered to the Public Works Director. If it is determined that a traffic signal is necessary to mitigate traffic conflicts and operations, as determined by the Public Works Director, the owner/applicant shall pursue said construction within six(6)months of written notice by the Public Works Director. • The applicant shall prepare, submit to the Public Works Director for approval, and implement a Parking Demand Reduction (PDR) program applicable during Phase 1 of the project(Stages A and B) and during Phase 2 (Stage C). The goal of the program is the reduce employee and patron demand for parking spaces by providing alternative management strategies (for employees) and access means (e.g. van pools, organized car pools, transit passes, and financial inducements that support alternative modes) for employees and patrons during tithes on-site parking is limited during construction. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 9 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X treatment,wastewater treatment,or storm drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? Wastewater Treatment The city municipal code requires all dischargers of non-domestic wastewater to the city sewer system to complete an industrial users survey and to obtain a discharge permit. The city's Industrial Waste program conducts annual inspections and occasional monitoring of effluent to ensure compliance. Sierra Vista Hospital is currently permitted to discharge to the city sewer. The permit requires that the city be notified and a revised permit applied for prior to the introduction of new wastewater, pollutants or any substantial change in the volume or characteristics of the wastewater. The permit defines prohibited discharges and sets limits and monitoring requirements for effluent. Some of the areas of concern include chemicals from labs, maintenance, de-scaling of cooling towers, grease traps, silver, toxics, infectious waste, mercury, and blood and body tissues from surgical procedures. Compliance with local wastewater regulations will ensure that the project will have a less than significant impact on municipal wastewater treatment. Conclusion: Less than significant.The Utilities Department states that the wastewater treatment facility is adequate to serve the project. Storm Drains An existing on-site storm drain will be replaced with a new storm drain as part of this project.The outfall into Stenner Creek will not be altered. Installation of filtering devices at the drain inlets should minimize any adverse impacts from this project on the creek as a result of storm drainage.See mitigation recommended under Hydrology and Water Qualiry. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. See mitigation recommended under Hydrology and CFTY OF SAN Lues OBiSPO 23 INM LL.STUDY ENviRONmENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 ,_� -90 - Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Suppont,.y ..[formation Sources Soutces Poa..cJ Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 145 01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco ted Water Quality. Water Availability: The City's Water Conservation Coordinator has reviewed the proposed subdivision and estimates that the project would require approximately 25 acre-feet of water annually. As of April 1, 2002 the City has approximately 130 acre-feet of water available to allocate to infill development and 136 acre-feet of water available for expansion areas. These figures take into account building permits currently in process. The City of San Luis Obispo obtains its water from a combination of surface and groundwater sources. Adopted safe annual yield from these sources is 7,530 acre-feet per year. The City is pursuing the development of additional water supplies, including the Nacimiento Pipeline Project,the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project,expansion of groundwater resources,and the Water Reuse Project. Reuse of treated wastewater for non-potable needs,such as landscape watering, will reduce demand on potable water supplies. This is likely to be the first additional source developed and is projected to yield roughly 1200 acre-feet per year at buildout. Half that amount would be held in reserve. The other half would be used in place of potable water,thereby increasing the amount of potable water available for allocation by roughly 600 acre feet per year. Planning for future water use in the city is based on an average consumption of 145 gallons per day per person or 0.162 acre- feet per person per year, which is somewhat higher than actual consumption during and since the most recent drought. Based on this water use rate and current city population, present demand is about 7,246 acre-feet per year. This number is recalculated annually using updated population estimates from the California Department of Finance.The difference between safe annual yield and present demand is 266 acre-feet per year,which is available to serve new development. Conclusion: Less than significant.The Utilities Department states that water supply is adequate to serve the project. Solid Waste: Land Use Element Policy 1.15 Solid Waste Capacity states that: In addition to other requirements for adequate resources and services prior to development, the City must determine that adequate solid waste disposal capacity will be available before granting any discretionary land use approval which would increase solid waste generation. Solid waste from this site is delivered to Cold Canyon landfill, which currently has a capacity to accept solid waste for approximately 18 years, based on the current rate of disposal and ongoing trends showing a reduction in per capita waste generation. Measures to reduce solid waste are still needed to improve compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939)shows that Californians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per person per year. 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 in the year 2018. To help reduce the ongoing waste stream,the City recently adopted an ordinance which requires that a construction materials recycling plan be submitted with construction or demolition plans to help reduce waste and comply with Assembly Bill 939. Conclusion:Potentially significant without mitigation. Mitigation: A recycling plan for demolition and construction activity shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to start of construction or issuance of any City demolition,building,or grading permits CRY OF SAN.Luis OatSPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 _91 Attachment 10 Issues, Discussion and Suppolt.b ..formation Sources Sources Pt,._.. .y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact ER# 145 01 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X 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 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? Without mitigation for items noted on page 3 of this study,the project could potentiall degrade the environment. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively 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 futureprojects) Impacts discussed under the headings of aesthetics,biology, cultural resources, energy, hydrology and water quality could be considered to have cumulative significance. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Mitigation is recommended in this study to avoid substantial adverse effects on human beings. CITY OF SAN Uns OBISPO 25 INITIAL STIDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2001 Q1 lT ER 145-01 l - Attachment 10 Sierra Vista Hospital Master Plan 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance 3. ARC Guidelines 4. Information Map Atlas 5. 1998 Clean Air Plan,SLO APCD 6. *Thor Conway, Heritage Discoveries Inc. 2001 Phase 2 Archaeological Sub-Surface Testing At The Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center, 1043 & 1045 Foothill Blvd., San Luis Obispo, California .Report To Tenet Health Systems.San Luis Obispo. *Thor Conway, Heritage Discoveries Inc. 2002a Additional Phase 2 Archaeological Sub-Surface Testing At 55 Casa Street, The Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center, San Luis Obispo, California. Report To Tenet Health Systems. San Luis Obispo. *Thor Conway,Heritage Discoveries Inc.20026 Phase 2 Archaeological Sub-Surface Testing At 55 Casa Street, The Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center,San Luis Obispo,California. Report To Tenet Health Systems.San Luis Obispo. 7. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines 8. Cultural Resource Inventory(March 2001)and Cultural Resource Sub-surface Testing(October 1995),Ethan Bertrando 9. Project comments from other City Departments and outside agencies 10. Traffic Study prepared by Higgins and Associates and dated September 20,2001 11. Biological Assessment for the Foothill Boulevard emergency bridge repair,prepared by Morro Group and dated November 21,2001 12. Letter from Dohn Associates Acoustical Consulting dated March 29,2001 13. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Attachments: vicinity map site plan rezoning exhibits elevations parking table peak hour trips creek setback exhibit tree removal exhibit comments from other dept's and agencies CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 n�OA ER 145-01 — Sierra Vista Hospital Master Plan Attachment 10 REOUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS ALL REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING SHALL BE CLEARLY NOTED ON CONSTRUCTION PLANS. AESTHETICS I. Undergrounding of existing overhead utilities along the project frontages shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 2. Submit a revised circulation and parking plan which reduces the number of trees to be removed to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 3. Provide a visual simulation of the hospital addition and the parking garage to assist the Architectural Review Commission in their evaluation of views of the project from Santa Rosa,Murray,and Casa Streets and from Foothill Boulevard. 4. Design modifications and additions to the hospital building to provide architectural continuity among the older and newer components of the building to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 5. To screen and soften views of the parking garage and the parking lot along Murray Street, use any combination of mounding(minimum of 3 feet in height), walls,raised planters and dense plantings of shrubs and trees to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 6. Use sodium lights in the parking structure. Project lighting and photometrics shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission with the objective of not creating a substantial new source of lighting or glare. All new light sources proposed with this project shall be shielded from off-site views, especially in the vicinity of the proposed garage. 7. Design the parking garage to be compatible with nearby residential structures and uses and to be pedestrian friendly at the street level to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 8. Screen outdoor and roof-mounted mechanical equipment from on-site and off-site views to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall clarify how undergrounding will be accomplished;show how the proposed number of tree removals has been reduced; include a visual simulation of the completed project;provide for screening of the parking areas;provide for screening of mechanical equipment; include details of proposed exterior light fixtures and the associated photometrics;include design elements that are compatible with nearby residential and pedestrian areas and that provide a level of architectural continuity between existing and new structures on the hospital site. Building plans shall be insubstantial compliance with plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission. AIR QUALITY Construction impacts 1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. 2. All dirt stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed. 3. Landscaping shall be installed within 30 days following completion of any soil disturbing activities. CrrY OF SAN Luis OBisPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 02 , 9 4 ER 145—01 Sierra Vista Hospital Master Plan AttaChment 1 4. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. 5. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting,or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. 6. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 7. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 8. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard(minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer)in accordance with CVC.Section 23114. 9. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. 10. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible. 11. Use catalytic soot filters on the two (2) pieces of diesel equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Where the catalytic soot filters are determined to be unsuitable, install and use an oxidation catalyst. Suitability is to be determined by an independent California Licensed Mechanical Engineer who will submit for District approval a Suitability Report identifying and explaining the particular constraints to using the preferred catalytic soot filter. This information shall be included in the contractor bid package to ensure these measures get incorporated into the project. Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and building plans. The applicant shall present evidence of a plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the City.The applicant shall provide the City with the name and telephone number of the person responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. Operational and Transportation related Imnacts 1. Since the project is located on an established transit route, a transit turnout and a shelter shall be constructed with direct pedestrian access to and from the facility. 2. Provide on-site bicycle parking for both short- and long-term use. The location of such bicycle parking shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. 3. Provide on-site eating,refrigeration and food vending facilities to reduce lunchtime trips. 4. Provide preferential carpool parking. 5. Provide shower and locker facilities to encourage employees to bike and/or walk to work, typically one shower and three lockers for every 25 employees. 6. Provide incentives to employees to carpool/vanpool or take public transportation. The particulars of subsidizing public transportation costs for employees shall be worked out with the City's Transit Manager. CrrY OF SAN Luis Oeispo 2s INITIAL STUDY EWR04MENTAL CHECKusT 2001 Q ^fil�_ ER 145-01 �_ _ Attachment 10 Sierra Vista Hospital Master Plan Monitoring Program: Provide details of items 1 through 5 on the plans submitted for architectural review. Site grading and building plans shall be in substantial compliance with plans approved by the ARC. The applicant shall submit copies of incentives offered to employees for carpooling and using public transportation to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any City grading or building permits for the project. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES I. Project grading and construction shall not encroach into the creek setback area as required by City Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.025, except as permitted by the Architectural Review Commission to allow removal of existing encroachments and to construct the accessway near the main entrance. 2. Trees identified by the Architectural Review Commission to be preserved shall be clearly marked on grading and construction plans. The applicant shall submit a tree preservation agreement for review, and approval by the Community Development Director.The agreement shall be secured by a bond in the amount determined by the City Arborist. Monitoring Program: a) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall mark the edge of grading with rigid fencing to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify the City when such fencing is in place and to schedule an inspection. b)Tree preservation agreement. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation For Archaeological Site CA-SLO-44 IA=Archaeological testing determined that the archaeological site located on the Siena Vista Regional Medical Center property, CA-SLO-44, covers about 336 square meters. It is recommended that mitigation excavations recover a 10% sample of the archaeological site, since unavoidable impacts from the development will destroy this cultural resource.A 10%sample of scientifically excavated material would include 33.6 square meters extending to the depth of the site..A report will describe the scientific results of this mitigation work. 1B—The mitigation excavation units shall be located in the lawn areas most suitable for excavation.at 1045 Foothill Blvd.and the lawn at the corner of Casa Street and Foothill Blvd. IC—Demolition of the house at 1045 Foothill Blvd., the orthodontist's office on Casa Street and the Robinson house at the corner or Casa Street and Foothill Blvd. cannot be done until archaeological mitigation excavations are completed. 1D—Removal of trees in the vicinity of archaeological site CA-SLO-44 cannot be done until archaeological mitigation excavations are completed. IE—All grading and mechanical excavation of native soils that contain materials from archaeological site CA-SLO-44 must be monitored by archaeological and Native American monitors until culturally sterile sub-soils are reached. 1F--All excavated soils from site CA-SLO-44 must be transported to a location approved by the city and the project archaeologist. A supplemental archaeological site record form will be produced to document the re-deposition of these archaeological soils. Mitigation For Archaeological Site CA-SLO-1738/H 2A—Further sub-surface testing shall be done at the northern portion of archaeological site CA-SLO-1738/H on the Siena Vista Regional Medical Center property. This testing will produce a report with planning recommendations for the protection of the cultural resource. CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 29 INmAL STUDY ENvtRONMENTAL CHECKLIST [�2001 C)r 1 T ER 145-01 Attachment 10 Sierra Vista Hospital Master Plan 2B—Design of the Medical Office Building shall include measures to protect the intact portion of site CA-SLO-1738/H if possible pending the results of additional sub-surface testing. Project plans for this building shall be reviewed by the project archaeologist with mitigation recommendations. 2C—All construction activity such as grading or excavation for utilities in the vicinity of site CA-SLO-1738/H shall be monitored by an archaeologist and Native American. 2D—In the event that significant cultural materials from site CA-SLO-1738/H are discovered during monitoring, provisions must be made for their recovery as specified in the City Of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center Expansion Archaeological Monitoring 3A—Many areas of the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center Expansion require archaeological monitoring due to the potential for cultural resources in intact or disturbed contexts across the property.Impacts include but are not limited to grading, excavation, drainage improvements, landscaping, underground utility trenching, removal of parking lots and fill soils and related activities. As construction schedules are determined, the developer and contractors shall provide scheduling and identify areas where impacts will occur for review by the project archaeologist. The project archaeologist will then determine whether monitoring is required.Not all areas will require continuous monitoring. 3B—Provisions shall be made for the project archaeologist to review the final draft of project plans and any changes in the development that may occur prior to building permit submittal. These reviews will identify any potential effects to heritage resources. 3C—Demolition of the former Mormon Church requires archaeological and Native American monitoring until all native soils are removed or impacted by demolition due to its proximity within ten meters of site CA-SLO-44. Testing adjacent to the church building yielded negative results. No further heritage studies or testing are required for this demolition to proceed. 3D—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all areas where encroachment of the creek setback will occur. 3E—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor removal of the parking lot at 55 Casa Street(former Mormon Church). 317—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor changes to the hospital entrance area and parking areas near Murray Street. 3G—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all excavation and grading in the parking lot area between the existing hospital and Stenner Creek. 3H—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all excavations and related impacts in the vicinity of Deseret Place. 3I—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all underground utility work including but not limited to water, sewer,gas lines,storm drains and electric cables. 3J—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor excavations and grading for the Cardiac Institute building. 3K—An archaeologist will review all tree removal plans and determine whether monitoring is required. If required, an archaeologist and Native American will monitor this work. 3L—An archaeologist will review all landscaping improvement plans to determine whether monitoring is required.. 3M— Archaeological monitoring will include provisions for evaluation of cultural resources discovered during construction as set forth in the City Of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT'2001 l 1 ER 145-01 - - Sierra Vista Hospital Master Plan Attachment 10 3N—An archaeologist and Native American will monitor removal of the Washingtonian palms at 55 Casa Street since this area lies within fifty meter of a known archaeological site boundary. Monitoring Program: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation and monitoring shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction.The applicant shall submit evidence of compliance with the monitoring program prescribed by Thor Conway,project archaeologist,to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. ENERGY RESOURCES Energy Efficiency Measures 1. Increase energy efficiency at least 20%beyond Title 24 requirements. 2. Plant shade tree along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. 3. Plant shade tree in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. 4. Use double-paned,low E windows. 5. Use energy-efficient lighting; heating, ventilation, air conditioning and cooling; water heating; and wall and ceiling insulation. 6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall indicate what energy efficiency measures will be incorporated into the project design. Monitoring Program: Prior to City issuance of any grading or building permit for any phase of the project,the applicant shall submit a report from a qualified energy consultant or design professional which details how the project design for the addition to the hospital, will exceed Title 24 energy requirements by at least 20% to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution Control District. GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 1. Construction documents shall be in accordance with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation reports (project number 1-0649)prepared by GSI Soils Inc. Monitoring Program: Prior to issuance of a City grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide the Chief Building Official with evidence that a qualified geotechnical engineering firm has been retained to monitor site preparation and construction as recommended in the geotechnical investigation reports(project number 1-0649)prepared by GSI Soils Inc. HYDROLOGY 1. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed in the new garage and at each on-site drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek through the storm water system. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to see that the such devices are regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. Monitoring Program: Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be clearly shown on plans submitted for architectural review and on construction documents. LAND USE AND PLANNING QTY OF SAN Luis Osispo 31 INmAL SnmY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECuatsr f2��001Q/Y�� ems( - 1 C/ ER 145—01 Sierra Vista Hospital Master Plan Attachment 10 1. The applicant shall provide for replacement housing in a form acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council to offset the loss of housing that will occur as a result of this project. Monitoring Program: Prior to issuance of any City permit for this project,the applicant shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. NOISE 1. All on-site generators shall be contained within an engineered enclosure with adequate intake and exhaust silencers to ensure compliance with City policies and standards for noise exposure. 2. All outdoor mechanical equipment shall be screened with a solid barrier or other device such as acoustical louvers to reduce noise levels in compliance with City policies and standards for noise exposure. 3. All exterior mechanical equipment proposed as part of this project shall be selected,configured, located,and housed in such a way as to ensure compliance with City policies and standards for noise exposure. 4. Construction activity shall comply with the City's noise ordinance in terms of noise levels and times of construction. Monitoring Program: Prior to City issuance of any application for grading or building, the applicant shall submit a report prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer which analyzes project compliance with required noise mitigation. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy,a qualified acoustical engineer shall field verify that equipment as installed complies with City polices and standards for noise exposure. TRANSPORTATION 1. The project shall include restriping Casa Street to remove existing parking and create a left and right turning lane onto Foothill. 2. The applicant shall provide subsidized public transit for employees to the satisfaction of the City Transit Manager for a minimum period of 5 years. 3. Bike lockers, bike racks, and designated shower facilities shall be shown on plans submitted to the City and to the State for a building permit to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. The project shall include relocation of Murray Street entrance further from the intersection with Santa Rosa Street. 5. Since the project is located on an established transit route, a transit turnout and new shelter are necessary. Direct pedestrian access to and from the shelter facility shall be constructed by the applicant. The shelter must meet City standards (to the satisfaction of the transit manager) and shall be delivered to the City' s Corporation Yard. The shelter and transit turnout will be installed by the City as part of the Foothill Bridge project. 6. The applicant shall dedicate necessary right of way (or an easement) along Foothill Boulevard for the new bus turnout, including an easement for the transit shelter,prior to issuance of any City building or grading permits,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 7. The applicant's traffic engineer shall work with Caltrans and the City of San Luis Obispo to improve signal operations at the Murray/ Santa Rosa (Hwy 1) intersection. This may include a split phase operation to improve westbound egress from the Murray onto Santa Rosa. 8. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City and shall post a"Letter of Credit"or other cash equivalent surety to guarantee design and construction of a traffic signal and signal interconnect(s)at the intersection of Foothill Blvd.and Casa Street. ii Ctrr OF SAN Luis Ostspo 32 INMAL STUDY ENvtRoNMENTAL CHEcKusT 2001 n r l ER 145—01 Sierra Vista Hospital Master Plan Attachment 10 9. The agreement shall be effective for three (3) years after completion of the proposed Sierra Vista Hospital addition and shall include the following requirements: 10. The owner/applicant shall provide periodic monitoring of the intersection and/or nearby traffic operations, to determine the possible need for a traffic signal, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 11. The monitoring and resultant reports shall be prepared by the owner/applicant's traffic engineer and delivered to the Public Works Director. If it is determined that a traffic signal is necessary to mitigate traffic conflicts and operations, as determined by the Public Works Director, the owner/applicant shall pursue said construction within six(6)months of written notice by the Public Works Director. 13. The applicant shall prepare, submit to the Public Works Director for approval, and implement a Parking Demand Reduction (PDR) program applicable during Phase I of the project(Stages A and B)and during Phase 2(Stage Q. The goal of the program is the reduce employee and patron demand for parking spaces by providing alternative management strategies (for employees) and access means (e.g. van pools, organized car pools, transit passes, and financial inducements that support alternative modes) for employees and patrons during times on-site parking is limited during construction. Monitoring Program: Prior to issuance of any City building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Director for review and approval: • a copy of the parking demand management plan for use during construction; • an agreement regarding the Casa/Foothill signal;and • documents granting necessary dedication and easements for the bus turnout and shelter. Required physical improvements shall be shown on the plans for architectural review and project grading and construction and shall be installed prior to City issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the garage. SOLID WASTE 1. A recycling plan for demolition and construction activity shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to start of construction or issuance of any City demolition, building, or grading permits Monitoring Program: The applicant shall provide evidence of compliance to the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. Crry OF SAN Luis OBIsPO 33 INITIAL STUDY ENvIRONmENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 0, )00 Sierra Vista Hospital - Preliminary Parking Analysis Attachment 10 Date: September 21, 2001 Available Parking Spaces Hospital Ownership Parking 415 LDS Church 46 Lutheran Church 40 Total 501 Current Parking Demand Spaces: Hospital Ownership Parking 415 LDS Church 46 Lutheran Church Estimated Use 5 Additional On Street Parking Use 20 Additional °Ram&Cram"" 10 Total Estimated Demand 496 Code Required Parking (Ex. Uses) square Foot # Beds Parking Ratio spaces Hospital 151,000 202 1 per tied 202 Med.Office Building 42,000 n/a 1 per 200 s.f. 210 MRI 3,500 n/a 1_per 200 s.f. 18 Total Code(Existing) 196,500 202 n/a 430 Code Required Parking (Ex. + Planned) Square Foot # Beds Parking Ratio Spaces Ez. Hospital 151,000 202 1 per bed 202 Ex. Med.Office Building 42,000 n/a 1 per 200 s.f. 210 MRI 3,500 n/a 1 per 200 s.f. 18 Hospital Expansion 50,000 24 1 per bed 24 New Med.Office Building 45,000 n/a 1 per 200 s.f. 225 Total Code(Ex.+ Planned) 291,500 226 n/a 679 Estimated Total Need at Build-Out Square Foot #Beds Parking Ratio Spaces Existing Demand 196,500 202 n/a 496 New Hospital Need 50,000 24 1 per bed 24 New MOB Need 45,000 Na 1 per 200 s.f. 225 Total Need 745 Parking Provided by Type spaces Hospital Surface Parking 319 Parking Structure 416 Lutheran Church 40 Total Provided 775 Estimated Surplus Demand 745 Provided 775 Total Surplus 30 "Ram &Cram"=parking in non-designated spaces (such as at ends of aisles) Date Printed: 9/20/2001 Prepared by: J.Knight a - � D � O *o�ppo 00 N N ; A lO M Lo r r o Attachment 1( M o 0o mo N, = Z N N 4 4 LL z O Z 1000 a0 O Co \� T T T T ... ...... .. ... n 4 =O ry i� 7 N N ON N n N O a. 0 2 Z_ M 04 0 CDW W V T LL O Op Wenn MCM n W Z o Q ' Z LT W 4M C WV N W N c o CTCV WN O 0O> W Lo CA C N O F- 'O O O O O n O Ow J°- m T�, m T c W a Q T T T T c) prR c 0 x LIZ: CD c d d d d m C7 n W co CA co Co Co Co T'c W 00 N O t0N (a Co V 74) n4) m._ N W jf MM CD ," O C " CD LL a c c m o p p 0 0 O q o�m co MCo M o 0 COD m a O T N m 0 0 0 0 CL W N m;r- m t= .O Ta15 OU � � O me W �+nn� Co mC �v v0U 0 F �� z 00 EXHIBIT 6- T2z Z PROJECT �" TRIP GENERATION GGW8 Awyo iAms ol �� Attachment .10 1 Sam Fames 2 F0*9MM S Foa°1tlUCdpartda ai g irk, 9 12 272 ,JI I73 - / I 205 E— � U` W 29 IW Foo,h81 BIvE FoolM Bhd Fo*0 B 98 481 148 Ise 170 383 4 A. _ 5 8 Ca9dSe�Omy Aocess-Sw10 r,osoe�nmeaA e&Hamm Rd aloft Amex ° � 7 JJ 2 �, � T 4 � 2 Fi 8 5 roma MOSPRW ACOM a ceseMuraY m� k, 'eY o �4 � 83 52 eo u � ,w Auray 7 95 � 22 —� �7 ° F90111 BIW 2 4 5 3 �i Slem Mata m W Medteal Center 6 � a m U 7 8 9 EXHIBIT 3a- EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HWM Assockfts A°1-031 Vol=wEn Yis a- �o3 Attachment 10 _ -- 2 -FoWdUCese 3 FooM�llCelGUNe I g m m k r 95 k- N N m F 21 3 f— go �j 3t� �— 202 E— 53f 69 `WY 75 -- FooIhB EM Foatlis Blvd71 Foothill SMt-�\ 15y I a . / 70B 1 185 _ 100 —�j 418 �� 511 211 9 ACOM 5 _ Pceasa-Nor0i s U m 0 W W WWWW Rd J, ltoNorth Aoo ,� smith Acss� T saRal A A211artnon 1 20 5 m 12 � � 3 � m -- - 9 Ca�aMmaY 7 Santa RosalMaraY- _- s -MurtayMospgalAmnss -_ c/ + a17 J E— Sao ze) y o W �T rtumrrMum13 22 71 is toe o 15 O N O Foo ---------- 1111 Blvd 4 8 N Sierra Vista W Medical Center ig 1 1 a s m m � a, T g. 9 EXHIBIT 3b- EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Mgglns Associates A01-031 VoIw>eSaTJ5 I , I - Attachment 10 _ 1 Sam RospJFFomhN 2 FOMU]JC a 3 Foothill Catilanla 8 � m C Fo m mo 0 0 6 k 0 2 I 6 L� m F— 2 F— 0 I v 0 0 21 WWW p a Foothill Blvd Footlull BWA Foam Blvd 13 /—� T0 0 �f 1 3 21 a 8 C 4 Ca=HMpftd Amsas 5�a Aomss-Nord+Amass-Nord+ 8 CoWISOOM11MY ACWS S da a Hasowl'%� W Hem=Rd Nor��+� Smith Ama14� 7 SaMa RosalMmay B M MWIHDsptatl Amsss 9 CasafMunvy m a 3 8 '/R/i 1\� k, 3 n I o a k,_ 4 1 C� �? 2 5 W E 30 �/� Muaav Murray MOM MOM 0 71 23 T 3 �0 I 22 �I 0 �l 0 O O lln 0 O N O 12% 11% 1 Foothill Blvd 4 Sierra Vista 8 a Medical Center rn z B E g in E m 2 U Murray St a� 7 8 9 55% 5%, 15% EXHIBIT 7a• AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT Higglm Asamdates A01-031 Volu=Ex iib r t O l S Attachment 10 2 FodhiltrUM 3 FaaddalCetdo Santa RosalFooth9l. Y m 0 0 00` k 0 o a ee 5 � 9 f_ 0 �` V E— 0 0 Foothill Bhd 91 Foothill Bhd FOG"Blvd 0 0 T 0 e _j I 9 9 m o o C 8 P q gal PLC099 6 $ 0p 41) 1 SMA Am Hospital/ HL Hwl,Rd North Pecess', 2 22 o � ® e MwruylHoW tal A0009s 9 Casa 7 Santa RosaNIAM g U a 23 o a a l v 9 94 wrnry Lunar 12 30 9 � 0 ® VVV 12% 11% oothll 6 Y y Sierra Vista m Medical Center a 6 E 3 rn .cn;2 N � 2% 7 $ 9 55% 5% 15% ® EXHIBIT 7b- PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT j Associates A01-031 Voluo=Exsxls r �D Attachment 10 1 So=RosalFooths - 2 FoothtO = - 9 Foollftr ftTila 3 ; o 274 'II 12 205 493W E— 73 40 55 "WYY 29 FoWd 9M .FmMO Blvd _,/A Blvd Blvd 64 —j T 748 —� 2115 �, T 4 daMft3pftW AMB25 5 CasivZotwidary AccessNoM 6 CesoSBmnEery A000u South � � m � 9 M.fIa.nOn RA Norlh �h M T10 2T 0 T 7 Same RoseM WM 8 MrthnaYAioapU Amens 9 casalkow 8 n a k� 30 k 5 81 55 g ti 104 = G� Ya Y o ,4erar MUM J � 14 173 94 h 10 �� T � 115 � 22 7 1 '111 g g 0 � o v o in Blvd 2 4 = 5 Siexa Vista m Medical Center 6 E hl U 7 6 8 EXHIBIT 8a- EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Hhobu Assodates A0I-031 Vdu¢ees�isF iisis car, - Attachment 10 1 Sane RosdFooM 2 Foothill asa 3 Fao81000aIeaNe m O - N H m f \ .337 21 E� y Me E— sss �i c� E— 20¢ 130 78 75 T Foo"Bhd 2202F oothill Shd .21 7» T ��yy �l pp 165 —� 212 � � sw 4 CWWHOSPId ASl61 5 Cese3eaaMary Axe%#htrth 8 ACoas ROYJI. N W Flow a Rd NoM AM17 A South 5Arrassa � T 29 7 � T zs 12 7 Sana RosaMAW 8 MtoeWMOBPM Access 8 CassM W �67 k, 4 k� 84 20 3 152 \. F— 80 253 0 Mpr� Muf, rAmar 22 T �e —� 1 I ! 11e 22 15 p q 0 ry m lr � O N O F ifl Bhd s 5 ra Sierra Vista 4 Metlieal Center 1 it 6 ro r$ MUMIX 7 8 9 EXHIBIT Bb- EXISTING PLUS PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Ids Assoelatos AOI-031 VolunmEnAs a.-jog ' 1 ■ i(it* � SA ' 1 �t v 1 lr•� r• ' I / �ig11101►91u� 'QI11 _ /S � i ��—�.�-..,; ■ter • • . f P r , fill k 05 n■■n u I • rmr :f�u'�n i Attachment V Project Address 1010 MURRAY Parcel # 052-181-034 Date Generated 09/27/01 Application Number 145-01 Legal Description CY SLO PM 50-16 PTN PAR 1 & CAL PK PTN LT 39 &40 Zoning 1 O Zoning 2 Property Owner SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL INC In Care Of %ROSEMONT& ASSOCIATES INC Owner Address 865 S FIGUEROA ST STE 1475 LA, CA 90017- Applicant Name SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL Day Phone (805)546-7695 Applicant Address 1010 MURRAY, SLO, CA 93405 Representative Name JOHN KNIGHT, RRM Day Phone (805)543-1794 Representative Address 3765 S HIGUERA SUITE 102, SLO, CA 93401 U office building and use in Office zone V request to allow 65 feet where 25 feet is the max height GP/R change from R4 to O ER rezoning and expansion of hospital ARC expansion of hospital Return with comments to by 10/20/01 Routed to: APCD ( 1 copies) Building (Site Grading) ( 1 copies) Transportation ( 1 copies) Pacific Bell ( 1 copies) Economic Dev. Mgr. ( 1 copies) Natural Resources Manager( 1 copies) Fish & Game ( 1 copies) PG &E ( 1 copies) Police Department ( 1 copies) Building Reg. ( 1 copies) Fire Department ( 1 copies) Street Trees (Pk. Fmn.) ( 1 copies) Utilities ( 1 copies) Public Works ( 1 copies) a-F(a Attachment 10 Please provide comments on YOUR page Public Works COMMENTS: This project should not proceed until the matter of Deseret Place abandonment has been resolved by the City Council. It may be advantageous to process the abandonment via a parcel map, in lieu of the CA Streets & Highways Code procedures. A parcel map could incorporate quitclaiming of City fee ownership of the Deseret Place right of way, for such compensation and conditions required by the City Council and show the final property boundaries. The plans do not indicate or note that a Lot Line adjustment (LLA) is requested, other than a comment received by staff regarding the need for separate parcels for financing of new structure(s). A parcel map could also include new easements, abandonment of unnecessary easements, common driveways, etc., as needed. If the intent is for all of the buildings (other than the existing medical building on Casa St.) to be within one parcel, a merger will be required. If separate parcels are proposed, the sewer and water services must be separate for each, along with other necessary easements for access, parking, etc. Although, normally, a"Lot Line Adjustment" could be processed to accomplish the applicant's apparent goals, in this case, the City could condition the LLA to "require" a parcel map to finalize abandonment or simply require processing of a minor subdivision, in lieu of a.LLA. (See prior pertinent abandonment comments per Planning Application #45-01) (See Transportation comments below) Check for any conflicts with utility services for the existing medical office building (not a part of this project) as a result of abandonment of Deseret place and/or any conflicts with existing onsite parking and driveway agreements. Otherwise, amendments to same may be required. CONDITIONS: Street-type entrances are acceptable, based on the anticipated volumes of traffic and/or emergency vehicles. However, the curb radii are subject to modifications on the final plans, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Show all driveway width and other pertinent dimensions throughout the site and grading plans. If the street name for Deseret Place is to remain, appropriate signing shall be provided to clearly indicate that it is no longer a public street, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Wheel chair ramps shall be provided pursuant to ADA and City regulations. - Attachment 10 Show existing storm drain(s) and utility easements on grading, landscape and site plans—some to be abandoned, etc. A new streetlight shall be installed on the Foothill frontage, near Stenner Creek, per City standards. Submit surveyed cross-sections along the creek channel (prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer) to assure that adequate setbacks are provided in accordance with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance for new buildings and other infrastructure improvements. All onsite fire hydrants shall be private and appropriate backflow devises shall be installed per City standards. Incorporate traffic mitigation measures established by the City Council or other appropriate approval body, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Community Development Director. If the development of the respective medical buildings or other structures are to be on separate parcels, separate water, sewer and other utilities services shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Director. Underground existing overhead utilities along the project frontages to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Submit plans that show the bus turnout on Foothill Boulevard. Attachment 1.0 Utilities Code Requirements A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. The cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, at a rate of$150 per bathroom retrofitted. If any water meters are added or upsized, Water and Wastewater Impact Fees will be charged, based on the increase. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. The cost of developing an allocation through the retrofit program could offset a portion of the required Water Impact Fee according to appropriate City policies. The project shall be coordinated with the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator for specific industrial waste/wastewater pretreatment requirements. Patti Gwathmey, the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator, can be reached by calling 781-7425. A separate connection shall be required for automatic fire sprinklers. The fire service lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of- way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service supports one or more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. A monthly service fee of$22.40 shall be required if the property does not have a connection to the City system for domestic use. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. Each lot must be served by separate utilities. Attachment 10 Fire Department 1. Fire Department Access: Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire.Code. Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and shall be designed to support the imposed loads of a 60,000-pound fire apparatus. Emergency vehicle access shall be maintained at all times. 2. Water Supplies: Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the California Fire Code. An approved water supply connected to the City distribution system and capable of providing the required fire flow is required. The fire flow shall be determining using Appendix III-A of the California Fire Code. Project will require the preparation of a fire flow analysis by a registered fire protection engineer. Scope of the analysis will include existing 4" and 6" water lines along Murray and Casa Streets and the looping of the system. 3. Fire Hydrants: Code Requirement: Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.4 of the California Fire Code. The location, number and type of hydrants connected to the City system shall be determined using Appendix III-B of the California Fire Code and the approved City Engineering Standards. Additional onsite hydrants will be required and existing dry-barrel hydrants shall be removed and replace with wet-barrels. 4. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Code Requirement: Fire protection systems shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code and California Building Code as amended by the City. The new buildings shall be protected throughout by an automatic fire sprinkler system and alarm system installed in accordance with the appropriate NFPA Standard. The location of fire protection equipment, valves, control panels and utilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 5. Fire Safety During Construction: Code Requirement: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the California Fire Code. Fire extinguishers shall be provided for buildings under construction. Combustible debris, waste material or rubbish shall not be accumulated within buildings. ...•�••••y ---... I8. 99% vvJJGufi an tri.I I a f AVJCGI nt:VICW 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 fty has received the following application and would like your comments. Attachment 10 10 dress 1010 MURRAY Parcel# 052-181-034 Date Printed:09/27/01 Routed to: APCD(1 copies) Number 145-01 Building(Site Grading)(1 copies) xiption Cy SLO PM 50-16 PTN PAR 1& CAL PK PTN LT 39&40 Transportation(1 copies) O Zoning 2 Pacific Bell(1 copies) wner SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL INC Economic Dev.Mgr.(1 copies) r Natural Resources Manager(1 °kROSEMONT&ASSOCIATES INC copies) tress 865 S FIGUEROA ST STE 1475 Fish&Game( 1 copies) PG&E(1 copies) Police Department(1 copies) LA CA 90017- Building Reg.( 1 copies) Fire Department(1 copies) ame SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL Day Phone(805)546-7695 Street Trees(Pk.Fmn.)( 1 copies) ddress 1010 MURRAY.SLO CA 93405 Utilities( 1 copies) Public Works(1 copies) live Name JOHN KNIGHT.RRM Day Phone(805)543.1794 We Address 3765 S HIGUERA SUITE 102,SLO,CA 93401 It ice building and use in Office zone First action date: / / luest to allow 65 feet where 25 feet is the max height First action date: / / mge from R-4 to O First action date: / / oning and expansion of hospital First action date: / / )anion of hospital First action date: / / Resource D .fi .ien y Certification- Yr ertifi ation•ftWve ' ' This pro!ect can be adequately accommodated without overloading the citys facilities and 1C Y Q resources. (Municipal Code Chapter 2.44) • This project,cannot be accommodated because of utility deficiencies explained here or attached. (Municipal Code apter 2.44) Signed Date comments to by 10/20/01 �h not required, comments and conditions are encouraged to be sent to the above via e-mail utilizing Microsoft Word format. Attachment 10 Building Reg. Demolition of existing structures requires a 90-day advertising period before demo permits can be issued. Suggest filing demolition permit application as soon as possible to "start the clock". Hospital facilities are under the jurisdiction of OSHPD. Indications are that the parking structure and the future medical office building will be under the City's jurisdiction. APCD should evaluate the emergency generator installation at the central. The central plant is a hospital facility and is under the jurisdiction of OSHPD. The openings in the wall of the parking structure that is opposite of the central plant may not be allowed. As two separate buildings, an assumed property line between the buildings will determine exterior wall construction, which will prohibit openings at that location. Reduction of openings may affect classification as an `open parking garage." Fire sprinklers will be required at the parking structure per local building code amendments. �-I (8 Attachment 10 Transportation Project Site Plan Comments 1. Street Abandonment & Public Utilities (Page 2 of Application Report): As part of the first phase of development, applicant shall obtain City approval to abandon Deseret Place as a public street. Public water and storm drainage utilities within Deseret Place will also be abandoned and become the maintenance and relocation responsibility of the property owner, as specified in the final abandonment resolution. All conditions of the final abandonment resolution shall be completed, prior to issuance of a building permit, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 2. Bicycle .Parking Facilities: Both short- and long-term bicycle parking shall be provided for existing and proposed uses within the master plan area in compliance with the City's Zoning Regulations. Bicycle lockers (or a fully enclosed lockable room reserved for bike parking) should be incorporated into the parking structure to provide for long-term employee needs; some lockers should be located in close proximity to the transit stop (see Condition 5) to enable multi-modal connections. Short-term parking (bike racks) shall be installed in close proximity to the main public entrances to the medical office buildings and hospital buildings, consistent with provisions of the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan. 3. Murray Street Frontage Treatment: The proposed parking bays fronting Murray Street shall be screened from view by installing a raised landscaped berm within the proposed 17-foot planter area to the rear of the sidewalk. The berm should have a minimum rise of three (3) to four (4) feet above adjacent grade. 4. Pedestrian Way Extension to Foothill Boulevard: the pedestrian pathway (6 ft. wide) at the rear of the proposed medical office building must be extended, parallel to the parking garage access, to connect with the public sidewalk on Foothill Boulevard, west of Casa Street. (This connection will provide a convenient shortcut for project employees, et al, to access commercial uses west of Santa Rosa Street on Foothill Boulevard, etc., and will provide access to a recommended transit turnout — see item 5 below.) 5. Transit Tum Out on Foothill Boulevard: applicant shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way and shelter easement and construct a transit tum out, shelter, bench, and signs along the property's Foothill Boulevard frontage west of Casa Street, consistent with the design specified by the City's Short-Range Transit Plan, per City standards. City will provide traffic impact fee (TIF) credits for the value of any additional right-of-way and the shelter easement needed to accommodate this turnout. 6. Air Quality Mitigation_ .& Transit Service: applicant should participate in a "flash pass" program that covers the cost of transit service for employees that desire to use either a --I l 9 Attachment 10 the SLO Transit system to access the site. The particulars of this program should be worked out with the City's Transit Manager. 7. PDR Program During Construction: the applicant shall prepare, submit to the Public Works Director for approval, and implement a Parking Demand Reduction (PDR) program applicable during Phase 1 of the project (Stages A and B) and during Phase 2 (Stage C). The goal of the program is the reduce employee and patron demand for parking spaces by providing alternative management strategies (for employees) and access means (e.g. van pools, organized car pools, transit passes, and financial inducements that support alternative modes) for employees and patrons during times on-site parking is limited during construction. Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Comments 8. Discrepancy In Project Description (page 1): the application materials state that a new 45,000 MOB is planned while the TIS indicates a 42,000 MOB. The application materials state that the parking garage will accommodate 416 spaces while the traffic study indicates the garage will accommodate 389 spaces. The TIS does not mention the 16.425 square foot operations plant. The TIS indicates that the total number of parking spaces will be 765 while the project application cites 780 (reference page 2). These discrepancies need to be eliminated. 9. Transit Service (page 5): the description of City transit service should be expanded. While Route 1 provides service along Casa and Murray Streets,. Routes 3, 4 and 6 stop at the Casa-Foothill intersection (eastbound), and Route 5 stops at the Casa-Foothill intersection (westbound). 10.Traffic Distribution (page 6):: we assume that the direction of flow to the site shown on page 6 identifies the "origins" of the trips (e.g. "from the south" via Santa Rosa Street) and not the direction of the flow. It's a bit confusing the way it's shown, a graphic would have helped. 11.Existing Intersection Descriptions (page 2): 1. Santa Rosa Street/Foothill Boulevard— the TIS assumes that because this intersection is interconnected that it is coordinated with the other signals along Santa Rosa Street. This should be clarified with Caltrans. Several years ago the City attempted to coordinate all of the signals along Santa Rosa, but Caltrans decided to remove the signals under their control from the coordination plan. Caltrans needs to confirm that this is oris not the case because these signals do not appear to be coordinated as the TIS assumes. 12.Existing Intersection Descriptions (page 3): 3. Santa Rosa Street/Califomia Boulevard— California and Santa Rosa do not intersect. This should be titled Foothill Boulevard/Califomia Boulevard. 13.Existing Intersection Descriptions (page 3): 4. Santa Rosa Street/Murray Street — The last sentence in this paragraph reads: provided on the northbound and �. -lam • Attachment 10 "northbound" Santa Rosa Street . . ." This should read: ". . . on the northbound and "southbound" . . ." 14.Existing Intersection Levels of Service (page 4): Paragraph 4: The Caltrans Traffic Manual indicates that `The decision to install a signal should not be based solely upon the warrants . . ." Simply meeting the Peak Hour Volume Warrant does not justify the installation of a signal at the Foothill/Casa intersection, it only means that a signal may be an appropriate tool to control traffic at this location. In addition, the signal warrant calculation has been done in error. At intersections with large right-tum volume amounts, a percentage of the right-tum volumes should be reduced from the approach volumes to reflect vehicles that are able to turn right without delay at the intersection. Volume counts indicate that only 35 left-tums occur for the peak hour... a number significantly below warrant criteria. The TIS should be revised to reflect these issues. 15.Existing Levels of Service (page 4): The report states that the Casa Street approach to Foothill operates at a LOS F for existing conditions; however, no HCM analysis sheet is contained in the appendices to verify conclusions. Observations of the intersection do not indicate that this approach is at this LOS and the issue should be re-analyzed by the consultant. In addition, an overwhelming majority of the approach traffic is right-tum traffic that is not delayed at the intersection. A full HCM LOS calculation should be provided for this location. 16.Existing Levels of Service (page 4): Paragraph 5: The last sentence suggests that both the Santa Rosa Street Corridor and the Foothill Blvd. Corridor should be coordinated with each other. The TIS should also describe how this should be done, as the Santa Rosa Street Corridor is partially controlled by Caltrans. The last time the City attempted to coordinate Caltrans' signals on Santa Rosa with the City's signals, Caltrans removed the coordination plan after only a few days. 17.Existing Levels of Service (page 5): Paragraph 3: Do the conclusions presented in this paragraph assume the signalization of the Foothill/Casa intersection. 18.Existing plus Project Intersection Operations (page 7) & Cumulative Intersection Operations (page 8): Although Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) LOS analysis for two- way stop controlled intersections only evaluates the LOS of the stop controlled approach, the analysis in the TIS must address the overall operation of the Foothill/Casa intersection and the Foothill Boulevard corridor both before and after the proposed signalization. This is not adequately addressed in the TIS. 19.Mitigation Measures — Improvements Warranted for Existing Traffic Conditions (page 8): Number 1 —The recommended signalization of the Foothill/Casa intersection should be removed as a recommended mitigation measure until the other issues described above (evaluation of this intersection and the evaluation of signalization of this intersection) are adequately addressed. Attachment 10 nemomnoum To: Terry Sanville From: Jim Hanson Date: 4/11/02 Re: SIERRA VISTA MASTER PLAN: RESPONSE TO RESPONSE TO STAFF COMMENTS RRM Design has prepared a written response to the transportation staff's critique of the Sierra Vista Master Plan. This memorandum is in response to RRM's response to transportation staff's comments 18 and 19 regarding signalization of the Casa/Foothill intersection. Staff is concerned that signalizing the Casa / Foothill intersection may create a more hazardous condition and decrease the operational efficiency of the Foothill corridor. Current collision history indicates that rear-end collisions on Foothill are the most prevalent type of collisions at the Casa / Foothill intersection; signalization of this intersection would likely increase the occurrence of these types of collisions. The Foothill /Santa Rosa(Hwy 1) signalized intersection, the Union Pacific railroad crossing and the Foothill /California signalized intersection are in close proximity to the Casa/ Foothill intersection. Because of this close proximity, the signalization of the Casa / Foothill intersection will effect the operation of the others. The following mitigation strategy is recommended: 1. The applicant's traffic engineer shall work with Caltrans and the City of San Luis Obispo to improve signal operations at the Murray / Santa Rosa (Hwy 1) intersection. This may include a split phase operation to improve westbound egress from the Murray onto Santa Rosa. 2. Install northbound left and right turn lanes on Casa at Foothill as previously recommended to reduce delay for right turning vehicles. !1 i Attachment 10 3. The applicant shall bond for the installation of a traffic signal at the Casa/ Foothill intersection. The term of the bond shall be five (5) years, commencing on completion of all improvements proposed by the Sierra Vista Master Plan. During this time frame, the applicant shall install a traffic signal at the Casa/Foothill intersection if: ■ The Director of Public Works determines that conditions demonstrate that delay at the intersection as created unsafe conditions for motorists,bicyclists or pedestrians; and ■ The City and Caltrans have mutually agreed upon and implemented a coordinated signal timing plan for the Foothill Boulevard corridor; or the City takes over operational responsibility for the Foothill / Santa Rosa intersection and institutes its own coordinated timing plan. a-�a3 F I yo"11 Date Received Attachment 11 city of RECEIVED L AL JL- san tuis OBISPO 32H2 Y HVELOF'ryl U Ma IF APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCI SECTION 1. APPELLANTINFORMATION JKfKe5 L9K.5 -Z2i,30 s if--6tm DP-43; D q;-11)1 Name Mailing Address and Zip Code IP'91 Lt -791 -5 -7 5-iJ Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECTOFAPPE4L 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: (Name of Officer,"tommittee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: ?,D70 Z3. The application or project was entitled: 155-60 4&8 n;4-PW TeAel-Lodg>.Ik�x 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: lzal% Wkt'5&—tA-"i on (Staff Members Name and Department) (Date) SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actions you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Attachment 11 Reason for Appeal continued �EC71t)N 4 ,APPELLANTS RESPONS/B/L)TY' •, k Y 1The an Lws Obispo Crty Council values>encourapublic participation in local government and y ges all formsof piUzen Involvement :The Gity,wunlike:min`YCalrfofiiadoes not charge aee for fdiggn appeal }iowever;Jpiaang-an appeal beforerthe City Count regLires considerable workand cost,:including,agendaxeport;prepar�atio� nd public notification y Therefore, your ng t10 exercise an appeal comes with certain,esponsibilfies If_you file an ePpeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days, rom filing his form You will be noted in writing of the exact daeyour appeal v�nllYbescheciuled to be heard;before the'f Council You or yourrepresentative will be expected.to attbh the public eanng,haand1&be prepared to make your>case ,;Your testimony is�1mided to i D; 'mutes hIt , " A continuance maybe granted under certain7andwnusual'circumstanees 1f you feel fou heed ' requegg conr►uance,you must submityout-request m wntingtotlae City.Cld :Pdease.°be advised that:: your request4o 66ritinuance is received-aherthe appeal is noticetl3octhe u[ lic'-the Council may not be"ati1e to grant the request for continuanoe. Subrnthng a.request�or continuance ,does not guaranteethat,rt wvillbe granted,that action is at the discretion o"f't�eCity Cnuncrl P J 11h agr_"ee to appear and/or send a representative itoa.. ppear on myttieha/f when said'appeai s scheduled for"a public hearing before"the City Council:: . "(Sig r of,Appell ant) (Date) This item is hereby calendared for V ��Cplty�Attorney , Administrative Icer Department Head p"'�e�C(•&_ ity ric(origin k7D�AA� OF Page 2 of 3 10101 o9 '�� Attachment 11 2230 Exposition Drive No. 30 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 December 16, 2002 City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit for Tenet California Health Systems -Sierra Vista Hospital Expansion Dear Mayor Romero and Council members: I am appealing the Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Tenet Califomia Health Systems, to address the location of alternative uses instead of the proposed parking garage at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Casa Street. Requirements for uses to be located as I am proposing would not be the purview of the Architectural Review Commission, of which I am a member. My comments are also directed at the general plan amendment and rezoning to change from High-Density Residential to Office (which is not subject to appeal). The Planning Commission recommendation on the rezoning and the commission's use permit approval imply that: 1. The community accepts and condones the idea that parking garages are acceptable urban features on large-scale collectors and along residential streets. Minimal or no effort in site planning analysis is necessary by applicants to justify such locations. The applicant is proposing that the comer of Foothill and Casa become the rear of the hospital project,even though other locations are available for structured parking. 2. The city is indifferent or even hostile to the idea of providing housing related to Cal Poly close to the campus. The applicant and Planning Commission are quite willing to"mitigate" the loss of eight potential housing units into a future public housing project somewhere in the city. 3. The city is unwilling to join other jurisdictions in providing housing for employees of very large-scale employers in close proximity to work, even where site and surrounding conditions are veryfavorable. The staff and Planning Commission were not interested in the applicant providing nearby housing for employees of the hospital, even though recent media reports have focused on the lack of such housing city-wide. In the hope that the attitudes of the city's representatives is in fact none of the above, I am appealing the Planning Commission's decision on the Conditional Use Permit so that your Council may consider site development issues along with the proposed amendments. Requested amendments. I request that your Council consider and approve a general plan amendment and rezoning of the entire property from Office and High-Density Residential to Office-Special Considerations and to Mixed Use in the area shown in Attachment A. This change is to enable the city to put an emphasis on the following: w Attachment 1.1 City Council James Lopes Tenet California Health Systems appeal December 16, 2002 2 1. Office-Special Considerations to include consideration of(1) actual and cumulative parking demand with any new application, and (2) the provision of affordable housing on-site to within one-quarter mile for a significant number of staff at Sierra Vista Hospital. 2. Office- Mixed Use on Casa Street from Foothill Boulevard to Deseret Street, to include general and.medical offices, neighborhood retail, cafes and services, and multi-family residential uses with units that are affordable for staff at Sierra Vista Hospital or to Cal Poly students and staff. Use Permit request. The request for the use permit is to amend the approved use permit with the following related conditions: 1. The applicant shall revise the site plan to locate the garage internally within the site, perpendicular to the proposed layout, with access to the proposed re-aligned Deseret Street. The garage shall be located behind a landscape strip and outside the creek setback. Attachment A shows a potential location. 2. The applicant shall locate at least eight(8)housing units (allowed by the previous High Density Residential zone) within the Mixed Use zone (area of the original proposed garage) at street grade or above neighborhood retail uses, cafes and services or general or medical offices. Upper floors may be used for offices if the minimum number of residential units are adequately provided. Parking access to all such uses shall be from within the garage and Deseret Street unless other rear parking is feasible. The massing of the buildings shall screen 80% of the garage from any views on Foothill Boulevard and Casa Street north of Deseret Street. Building fors shall be a mixture of multiple stories, highly articulated and relating to an arrangement of courtyards for residents, clients, customers and general public. 3. The applicant shall locate street-fronting uses with pedestrian access to Foothill Boulevard and Casa Street. Small open spaces shall be provided in back of sidewalk that relate to public circulation,resting, and business access. Outdoor dining areas are encouraged. Certain studies have shown that pedestrians are not interested in walking far without encountering an interesting public or commercial feature that serves as an interim destination. A massive parking garage on Foothill Boulevard would dampen pedestrian circulation to shopping areas, reduce housing opportunities near the hospital and Cal Poly, and plant a"blank" use with no people activity precisely where the opposite is needed. It is the antithesis of good urban planning and design. The city would be better served if buildings with housing and neighborhood uses screen the proposed parking garage and provide an activity node on Foothill Boulevard and Casa Street.. By an activity node is meant a small center of pedestrian-oriented commercial and office uses, to attract pedestrians as a walking destination, in order to link them more effectively for walking to the University Square and Foothill Plaza shopping areas. Your consideration of these viewpoints is appreciated. Sincerely, es Lope }.I om . • do IC �. 11.0 lv 4rAa'W f!YTI MNI is MY TV rr 1�'' "kvi1t a�� ,� iii ►tf �� ,,� ;��: ��/L•rf ��, .., �.IIIfi l��.l rr .��T1 ��GiE7 I I J F.ry ,tl:y� •' SII �••`l+l Jl yi..i Attachment 12 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 145-01 AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW(MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION) 145-01 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 1043/1045 FOOTHILL BLVD. FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE TO ALLOW A HOSPITAL EXPANSION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PARKING GARAGE FOR SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL AT 1010 MURRAY STREET; TENET CALIFORNIA HEALTH SYSTEMS,APPLICANT. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 24, 2002 and December 4, 2002, for the purpose of considering Application GP/R/U/LLA/ER 145-01, a proposed General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Use Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Siena Vista Hospital. and recommended approval of GP/R/ER 145-01 and approved U/LLA 145-01; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 1, 2003 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law. 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 following mitigation measures into the project: AESTHETICS 1. Sierra Vista will install underground conduit for all above-ground wires with necessary pull boxes for (1) the frontage along Foothill beginning at the utility pole next to the Creek to the corner of Casa Street and (2) the frontage of Casa Street from the comer of Foothill Blvd. to the utility pole on the south side of Deseret. � � � J1 Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 2. Submit a revised circulation and parking plan which reduces the number of trees to be removed to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 3. Provide a visual simulation of the hospital addition and the parking garage to assist the Architectural Review Commission in their evaluation of views of the project from Santa Rosa, Murray, and Casa Streets and from Foothill Boulevard. 4. Design modifications and additions to the hospital building to provide architectural continuity among the older and newer components of the building to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 5. To screen and soften views of the parking garage and the parking lot along Murray Street, use any combination of mounding (minimum of 3 feet in height), walls,raised planters and dense plantings of shrubs and trees to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 6. Use sodium lights in the parking structure. Project lighting and photometrics shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission with the objective of not creating a substantial new source of lighting or glare. All new light sources proposed with this project shall be shielded from off-site views, especially in the vicinity of the proposed garage. 7. Design the parking garage to be compatible with nearby residential structures and uses and to be pedestrian friendly at the street level to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 8. Screen outdoor and roof-mounted mechanical equipment from on-site and off-site views to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall clarify how undergrounding will be accomplished; show how the proposed number of tree removals has been reduced; include a visual simulation of the completed project; provide for screening of the parking areas; provide for screening of mechanical equipment; include details of proposed exterior light fixtures and the associated photometrics; include design elements that are compatible with nearby residential and pedestrian areas and that provide a level of architectural continuity between existing and new structures on the hospital site. Building plans shall be insubstantial compliance with plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission. AIR QUALI7T Construction impacts r 130 Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 3 1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. 2. All dirt stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed. 3. Landscaping shall be installed within 30 days following completion of any soil disturbing activities. 4. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. 5. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. 6. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 7. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 8. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer)in accordance with CVC Section 23114. 9. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. 10. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible. 11. Use catalytic soot filters on the two (2) pieces of diesel equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Where the catalytic soot filters are determined to be unsuitable, install and use an oxidation catalyst. Suitability is to be determined by an independent California Licensed Mechanical Engineer who will submit for District approval a Suitability Report identifying and explaining the particular constraints to using the preferred catalytic soot filter. This information shall be included in the contractor bid package to ensure these measures get incorporated into the project. d� r101 J Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 4 Monitoring Program These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and building plans. The applicant shall present evidence of a plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the City. The applicant shall provide the City with the name and telephone number of the person responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. Operational and Transportation related Impacts 1. Since the project is located on an established transit route, a transit turnout and a shelter shall be constructed with direct pedestrian access to and from the facility. 2. Provide on-site bicycle parking for both short- and long-term use. The location of such bicycle parking shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. 3. Provide on-site eating, refrigeration and food vending facilities to reduce lunchtime trips. 4. Provide preferential carpool parking. 5. Provide shower and locker facilities to encourage employees to bike and/or walk to work, typically one shower and three lockers for every 25 employees. 6. Provide incentives to employees to carpool/vanpool or take public transportation. The particulars of subsidizing public transportation costs for employees shall be worked out with the City's Transit Manager. Monitoring Program: Provide details of items 1 through 5 on the plans submitted for architectural review. Site grading and building plans shall be in substantial compliance with plans approved by the ARC. The applicant shall submit copies of incentives offered to employees for carpooling and using public transportation to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any City grading or building permits for the project. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Project grading and construction shall not encroach into the creek setback area as required by City Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.025, except as permitted by the Architectural Review Commission to allow removal of existing encroachments and to construct the accessway near the main entrance. 2. Trees identified by the Architectural Review Commission to be preserved shall be clearly marked on grading and construction plans. The applicant shall submit a tree preservation agreement for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The agreement shall be secured by a bond in the amount determined by the City Arborist. Attachment .12 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 5 Monitoring Program: a) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall mark the edge of grading with rigid fencing to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify the City when such fencing is in place and to schedule an inspection. b)Tree preservation agreement. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation For Archaeological Site CA-SLO-44. IA.Archaeological testing determined that the archaeological site located on the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center property, CA-SLO-44, covers about 336 square meters. It is recommended that mitigation excavations recover a 10% sample of the archaeological site; since unavoidable impacts from the development will destroy this cultural resource. A 10% sample of scientifically excavated material would include 33.6 square meters extending to the depth of the site. A report will describe the scientific results of this mitigation work. 1B.The mitigation excavation units shall be located in the lawn areas most suitable for excavation at 1045 Foothill Blvd. and the lawn at the corner of Casa Street and Foothill Blvd. 1C.Demolition of the house at 1045 Foothill Blvd., the orthodontist's office on Casa Street and the Robinson house at the corner or Casa Street and Foothill Blvd. cannot be done until archaeological mitigation excavations are completed. 1D.Removal of trees in the vicinity of archaeological site CA-SLO-44 cannot be done until archaeological mitigation excavations are completed. l E.All grading and mechanical excavation of native soils that contain materials from archaeological site CA-SLO-44 must be monitored by archaeological and Native American monitors until culturally sterile sub-soils are reached. 1F.All excavated soils from site CA-SLO-44 must be transported to a location approved by the city and the project archaeologist. A supplemental archaeological site record form will be produced to document the re-deposition of these archaeological soils. Mitigation For Archaeological Site CA-SLO-1738/H 2A.Further sub-surface testing shall be done at the northern portion of archaeological site CA- SLO-173 8/H on the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center property. This testing will produce a report with planning recommendations for the protection of the cultural resource. oCr � J✓ Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 6 2B.Design of the Medical Office Building shall include measures to protect the intact portion of site CA-SLO-1738/11 if possible pending the results of additional sub-surface testing. Project plans for this building shall be reviewed by the project archaeologist with mitigation recommendations. 2C.All construction activity such as grading or excavation for utilities in the vicinity of site CA- SLO-173 8/11 shall be monitored by an archaeologist and Native American. 2D.In the event that significant cultural materials from site CA-SLO-1738/H are discovered during monitoring, provisions must be made for their recovery as specified in the City Of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center Expansion Archaeological Monitoring 3A.Many areas of the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center Expansion require archaeological monitoring due to the potential for cultural resources in intact or disturbed contexts across the property. Impacts include but are not limited to grading, excavation, drainage improvements, landscaping, underground utility trenching, removal of parking lots and fill soils and related activities. As construction schedules are determined, the developer and contractors shall provide scheduling and identify areas where impacts will occur for review by the project archaeologist. The project archaeologist will then determine whether monitoring is required. Not all areas will require continuous monitoring. 3B.Provisions shall be made for the project archaeologist to review the final draft of project plans and any changes in the development that may occur prior to building permit submittal. These reviews will identify any potential effects to heritage resources. 3C.Demolition of the former Mormon Church requires archaeological and Native American monitoring until all native soils are removed or impacted by demolition due to its proximity within ten meters of site CA-SLO-44. Testing adjacent to the church building yielded negative results. No further heritage studies or testing are required for this demolition to proceed. 3D.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all areas where encroachment of the creek setback will occur. 3E.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor removal of the parking lot at 55 Casa Street(former Mormon Church). 3F.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor changes to the hospital entrance area and parking areas near Murray Street. I. Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 7 3G.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all excavation and grading in the parking lot area between the existing hospital and Stenner Creek. 3H.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all excavations and related impacts in the vicinity of Deseret Place. 3I. An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all underground utility work including but not limited to water, sewer, gas lines, storm drains and electric cables. 3J. An archaeologist and Native American will monitor excavations and grading for the Cardiac Institute building. 3K.An archaeologist will review all tree removal plans and determine whether monitoring is required. If required, an archaeologist and Native American will monitor this work. 3L.An archaeologist will review all landscaping improvement plans to determine whether monitoring is required. 3M.Archaeological monitoring will include provisions for evaluation of cultural resources discovered during construction as set forth in the City Of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. 3N.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor removal of the Washingtonian palms at 55 Casa Street since this area lies within fifty meter of a known archaeological site boundary. Monitoring Program: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation and monitoring shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. The applicant shall submit evidence of compliance with the monitoring program prescribed by Thor Conway, project archaeologist, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. ENERGY RESOURCES Energy Efficiency Measures 1. Increase energy efficiency at least 20%beyond Title 24 requirements. 2. Plant shade tree along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. 3. Plant shade tree in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. 4. Use double-paned, low E windows. i Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 8 5. Use energy-efficient lighting; heating, ventilation, air conditioning and cooling; water heating; and wall and ceiling insulation. 6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall indicate what energy efficiency measures will be incorporated into the project design. Monitoring Program: Prior to City issuance of any grading or building permit for any phase of the project, the applicant shall submit a report from a qualified energy consultant or design professional which details how the project design for the addition to the hospital, will exceed Title 24 energy requirements by at least 20% to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution Control District. GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 1. Construction documents shall be in accordance with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation reports (project number 1-0649)prepared by GSI Soils Inc. Monitoring Program: Prior to issuance of a City grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide the Chief Building Official with evidence that a qualified geotechnical engineering firm has been retained to monitor site preparation and construction as recommended in the geotechnical investigation reports (project.number 1-0649) prepared by GSI Soils Inc. HYDROLOGY 1. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed in the new garage and at each on-site drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek through the storm water system. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to see that the such devices are regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. Monitoring Program: Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be clearly shown on plans submitted for architectural review and on construction documents. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. The applicant shall provide for replacement housing in a form acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council to offset the loss of housing that will occur as a result of this project. Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 9 Monitoring Program: Prior to issuance of any City permit for this project, the applicant shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. NOISE 1. All on-site generators shall be contained within an engineered enclosure with adequate intake and exhaust silencers to ensure compliance with City policies and standards for noise exposure. 2. All outdoor mechanical equipment shall be screened with a solid barrier or other device such as acoustical louvers to reduce noise levels in compliance with City policies and.standards for noise exposure. 3. All exterior mechanical equipment proposed as part of this project shall be selected, configured, located, and housed in such a way as to ensure compliance with City policies and standards for noise exposure. 4. Construction activity shall comply with the City's noise ordinance in terms of noise levels and times of construction. Monitoring Program: Prior to City issuance of any application for grading or building, the applicant shall submit a report prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer which analyzes project compliance with required noise mitigation.. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a qualified acoustical engineer shall field verify that equipment as installed complies with City polices and standards for noise exposure. TRANSPORTATION 1. The project shall include restriping Casa Street to remove existing parking and create a left and right turning lane onto Foothill. 2. The applicant shall provide subsidized public transit for employees to the satisfaction of the City Transit Manager for a minimum period of 5 years. 3. Bike lockers, bike racks, and designated shower facilities shall be shown on plans submitted to the City and to the State for a building permit to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. The project shall include relocation of Murray Street entrance further from the intersection with Santa Rosa Street. a ��l Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 10 5. Since the project is located on an established transit route, a transit turnout and new shelter are necessary. Direct pedestrian access to and from the shelter facility shall be constructed by the applicant. The shelter must meet City standards (to the satisfaction of the transit manager) and shall be delivered to the City' s Corporation Yard. The shelter and transit turnout will be installed by the City as part of the Foothill Bridge project. 6. The applicant shall dedicate necessary right of way (or an easement) along Foothill Boulevard for the new bus turnout, including an easement for the transit shelter, prior to issuance of any City building or grading permits, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 7. The applicant's traffic engineer shall work with Caltrans and the City of San Luis Obispo to improve signal operations at the Murray / Santa Rosa (Hwy 1) intersection. This may include a split phase operation to improve westbound egress from the Murray onto Santa. Rosa. 8. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City and shall post a "Letter of Credit" or other cash equivalent surety to guarantee design and construction of a traffic signal and signal interconnect(s) at the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and Casa Street. 9. The agreement shall be effective for three (3) years after completion of the proposed Sierra Vista Hospital addition and shall include the following requirements: 10. The owner/applicant shall provide periodic monitoring of the intersection and/or nearby traffic operations, to determine the possible need for a traffic signal, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 11. The monitoring and resultant reports shall be prepared by the owner/applicant's traffic engineer and delivered to the Public Works Director. If it is determined that a traffic signal is necessary to mitigate traffic conflicts and operations, as determined by the Public Works Director, the owner/applicant shall pursue said construction within six (6) months of written notice by the Public Works Director. 13. The applicant shall prepare, submit to the Public Works Director for approval, and implement a Parking Demand Reduction (PDR) program applicable during Phase 1 of the project (Stages A and B) and during Phase 2 (Stage Q. The goal of the program is the reduce employee and patron demand for parking spaces by providing alternative management strategies (for employees) and access means (e.g. van pools, organized car pools, transit passes, and financial inducements that support alternative modes) for employees and patrons during times on-site parking is limited during construction. Monitoring Program: i Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 11 Prior to issuance of any City building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Director for review and approval: • a copy of the parking demand management plan for use during construction; • an agreement regarding the Casa/Foothill signal; and • documents granting necessary dedication and easements for the bus turnout and shelter. Required physical improvements shall be shown on the plans for architectural review and project grading and construction and shall be installed prior to City issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the garage. SOLID WASTE 1. A recycling plan for demolition and construction activity shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to start of construction or issuance of any City demolition, building, or grading permits Monitoring Program: The applicant shall provide evidence of compliance to the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of General Plan Amendment 145-01 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed change in land use designation for property at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard, as shown on Exhibit A, is consistent with General Plan polices related to the location of medical facilities, retention of existing businesses, and the City's desire to serve as a hub for medical services. 2. Adjusting the land use boundary to reduce land designated as residential is appropriate in this case because a significant, long-term citywide need for medical services outweighs the preference to retain residential capacity at the affected location. The expansion of hospital services are best accommodated at the proposed location. SECTION 3. Approval. The request for approval of General Plan Amendment 145-01 and Environmental Review (Mitigated Negative Declaration) 145-01 to change the land use designation of 1043/1045 Foothill Boulevard from High Density Residential to Office to allow a hospital expansion and construction of a new parking garage for Sierra Vista Hospital is hereby approved. Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 12 On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 1 st day of April, 2003. Mayor David Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: nterim City AttombrGil Trujillo G:/GROUPS/COMDEV/CD-PLAN/lazevedo/Resolutions/CC Reso 145-01 Sierra Vista-approval -�-�-res•.-r-�•y�y,...�. .� a[� .�,1.Ry^;'+"'sr � xtY,•r1�s 1,/.�t4P^G_.{.F "._2 L � ••`•��♦AA'TisL�,ry�= ��F$� ;t r y'jrliti4 � +x7 '�, ` ` .fir k ^'...w:yr '� � 'SF��sG4 � r i i c F� t,�-iL��iYv.�i� � � �� v�ey�'l�'rsr~"�i�>yiS,ai•.� '/a N. f is l .,,n � L�^•1� r r^.' <' Vi� YF Y S T k/ I� ,. �"'1 .% •rte F,F" T r \ f r4 yytr i• \` v c lefties C- ) 4'i ,`{rI 1._•.r{ r ��{ I r `LrS"'C[� •-M��Y '3. r^rii.� y`�� ':ll'\r�� r amt a �'` ! �"-.�-•;� n r sed \�. ..i.. 44•,1 M"y;��tiNY:i\ 5 4• _� iti \rY�l • ,�r � /1 R tr1 I I ♦ I i � � Attachment 13 ORDINANCE NO. (2003 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF 1043/1045 FOOTHILL BLVD. FROM HIGH DESNITY RESIDENTIAL (114) TO OFFICE (0) (R 145-01) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 24, 2002 and December 4, 2002, for the purpose of considering Application GP/R/U/LLA/ER 145-01, a proposed General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Use Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Sierra Vista Hospital; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of amendment to the City's Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, April 1, 2003 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 revisions are consistent with the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; 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 ORDAINED by the 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 map amendment to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project: AESTHETICS 1. Sierra Vista will install underground conduit for all above-ground wires with necessary pull boxes for (1) the frontage along Foothill beginning at the utility pole next to the Creek to the comer of Casa Street and (2) the frontage of Casa Street from the comer of Foothill Blvd. to the utility pole on the south side of Deseret. 2. Submit a revised circulation and parking plan which reduces the number of trees to be removed to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. Attachment 13 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) Page 2 3. Provide a visual simulation of the hospital addition and the parking garage to assist the Architectural Review Commission in their evaluation of views of the project from Santa Rosa, Murray, and Casa Streets and from Foothill Boulevard. 4. Design modifications and additions to the hospital building to provide architectural continuity among the older and newer components of the building to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 5. To screen and soften views of the parking garage and the parking lot along Murray Street, use any combination of mounding (minimum of 3 feet in height), walls,raised planters and dense plantings of shrubs and trees to the satisfaction of the.Architectural Review Commission. 6. Use sodium lights in the parking structure. Project lighting and photometrics shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission with the objective of not creating a substantial new source of lighting or glare. All new light sources proposed with this project shall be shielded from off-site views, especially in the vicinity of the proposed garage. 7. Design the parking garage to be compatible with nearby residential structures and uses and to be pedestrian friendly at the street level to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. 8. Screen outdoor and roof-mounted mechanical equipment from on-site and off-site views to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall clarify how undergrounding will be accomplished; show how the proposed number of tree removals has been reduced; include a visual simulation of the completed project; provide for screening of the parking areas; provide for screening of mechanical equipment; include details of proposed exterior light fixtures and the associated photometrics; include design elements that are compatible with nearby residential and pedestrian areas and that provide a level of architectural continuity between existing and new structures on the hospital site. Building plans shall be insubstantial compliance with plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission. AIR QUALITY Construction impacts 1. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. 2. All dirt stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed. Ordinance No. (2003 Series) Attachment 13 Page 3 3. Landscaping shall be installed within 30 days following completion of any soil disturbing activities. 4. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. 5. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. 6. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 7. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 8. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. 9. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. 10. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible. 11. Use catalytic soot filters on the two (2) pieces of diesel equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Where the catalytic soot filters are determined to be unsuitable, install and use an oxidation catalyst. Suitability is to be determined by an independent California Licensed Mechanical Engineer who will submit for District approval a Suitability Report identifying and explaining the particular constraints to using the preferred catalytic soot filter. This information shall be included in the contractor bid package to ensure these measures get incorporated into the project. Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and building plans.. The applicant shall present evidence of a plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the City. The applicant shall provide the City with the name and telephone number of the person responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. Operational and Transportation related Impacts Q- 144 _. I Attachment 13 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) Page 4 1. Since the project is located on an established transit route, a transit turnout and a shelter shall be constructed with direct pedestrian access to and from the facility. 2. Provide on-site bicycle parking for both short- and long-term use. The location of such bicycle parking shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. 3. Provide on-site eating, refrigeration and food vending facilities to reduce lunchtime trips. 4. Provide preferential carpool parking. 5. Provide shower and locker facilities to encourage employees to bike and/or walk to work, typically one shower and three lockers for every 25 employees. 6. Provide incentives to employees to carpool/vanpool or take public transportation. The particulars of subsidizing public transportation costs for employees shall be worked out with the City's Transit Manager. Monitoring Program: Provide details of items 1 through 5 on the plans submitted for architectural review. Site grading and building plans shall be in substantial compliance with plans approved by the ARC. The applicant shall submit copies of incentives offered to employees for carpooling and using public transportation to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any City grading or building permits for the project. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Project grading and construction shall not encroach into the creek setback area as required by City Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.025, except as permitted by the Architectural Review Commission to allow removal of existing encroachments and to construct the accessway near the main entrance. 2. Trees identified by the Architectural Review Commission to be preserved shall be clearly marked on grading and construction plans. The applicant shall submit a tree preservation agreement for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The agreement shall be secured by a bond in the amount determined by the City Arborist. Monitoring Program: a) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall mark the edge of grading with rigid fencing to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to notify the City when such fencing is in place and to schedule an inspection. b)Tree preservation agreement. Attachment 13 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) Page 5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation For Archaeological Site CA-SLO-44 IA.Archaeological testing determined that the archaeological site located on the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center property, CA-SLO-44, covers about 336 square meters. It is recommended that mitigation excavations recover a 10% sample of the archaeological site, since unavoidable impacts from the development will destroy this cultural resource. A 10% sample of scientifically excavated material would include 33.6 square meters extending to the depth of the site. A report will describe the scientific results of this mitigation work. 1B.The mitigation excavation units shall be located in the lawn areas most suitable for excavation at 1045 Foothill Blvd. and the lawn at the corner of Casa Street and Foothill Blvd. 1C.Demolition of the house at 1045 Foothill Blvd., the orthodontist's office on Casa Street and the Robinson house at the comer or Casa Street and Foothill Blvd. cannot be done until archaeological mitigation excavations are completed. 1D.Removal of trees in the vicinity of archaeological site CA-SLO-44 cannot be done until archaeological mitigation excavations are completed. 1E.All grading and mechanical excavation of native soils that contain materials from archaeological site CA-SLO 44 must be monitored by archaeological and Native American monitors until culturally sterile sub-soils are reached.. 1F.All excavated soils from site CA-SLO-44 must be transported to a location approved by the city and the project archaeologist. A supplemental archaeological site record form will be produced to document the re-deposition of these archaeological soils. Mitigation For Archaeological Site CA-SLO-1738/11 2A.Further sub-surface testing shall be done at the northern portion of archaeological site CA- SLO-1738/11 on the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center property. This testing will produce a report with planning recommendations for the protection of the cultural resource. 2B.Design of the Medical Office Building shall include measures to protect the intact portion of site CA-SLO-1738/H if possible pending the results of additional sub-surface testing. Project plans for this building shall be reviewed by the project archaeologist with mitigation recommendations. 2C.All construction activity such as grading or excavation for utilities in the vicinity of site CA- SLO-173 8/H shall be monitored by an archaeologist and Native American. a- 1�(o Attachment 13 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) Page 6 2D.In the event that significant cultural materials from site CA-SLO-1738/H are discovered during monitoring,provisions must be made for their recovery as specified in the City Of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center Expansion Archaeological Monitoring 3A.Many areas of the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center Expansion require archaeological monitoring due to the potential for cultural resources in intact or disturbed contexts across the property. Impacts include but are not limited to grading, excavation, drainage improvements, landscaping, underground utility trenching, removal of parking lots and fill soils and related activities. As construction schedules are determined, the developer and contractors shall provide scheduling and identify areas where impacts will occur for review by the project archaeologist. The project archaeologist will then determine whether monitoring is required. Not all areas will require continuous monitoring. 3B.Provisions shall be made for the project archaeologist to review the final draft of project plans and any changes in the development that may occur prior to building permit submittal. These reviews will identify any potential effects to heritage resources. 3C.Demolition of the former Mormon Church requires archaeological and Native American monitoring until all native soils are removed or impacted by demolition due to its proximity within ten meters of site CA-SLO-44. Testing adjacent to the church building yielded negative results. No further heritage studies or testing are required for this demolition to proceed. 3D.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor. all.areas where encroachment of the creek setback will occur. 3E.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor removal of the parking lot at 55 Casa Street(former Mormon Church). 3F.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor changes to the hospital entrance area and parking areas near Murray Street. 3G.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all excavation and grading in the parking lot area between the existing hospital and Stenner Creek. 3H.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all excavations and related impacts in the vicinity of Deseret Place. 3I. An archaeologist and Native American will monitor all underground utility work including. but not limited to water, sewer, gas lines, storm drains and electric cables. r Attachment 13 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) Page 7 . M. An archaeologist and Native American will monitor excavations and grading for the Cardiac Institute building. 3K.An archaeologist will review all tree removal plans and determine whether monitoring is required. If required, an archaeologist and Native American will monitor this work. 3L.An archaeologist will review all landscaping improvement plans to determine whether monitoring is required. 3M.Archaeological monitoring will include provisions for evaluation of cultural resources discovered during construction as set forth in the City Of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. 3N.An archaeologist and Native American will monitor removal of the Washingtonian palms at 55 Casa Street since this area lies within fifty meter of a known archaeological site boundary. Monitoring Program: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation and monitoring shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. The applicant shall submit evidence of compliance with the monitoring program prescribed by Thor Conway; project archaeologist, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. ENERGY RESOURCES Energy Efficiency Measures 1. Increase energy efficiency at least 20%beyond Title 24 requirements. 2. Plant shade tree along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. 3. Plant shade tree in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. 4. Use double-paned, low E windows. 5. Use energy-efficient lighting; heating, ventilation, air conditioning and cooling; water heating; and wall and ceiling insulation. 6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall indicate what energy efficiency measures will be incorporated into the project design. Monitoring Program: Prior to City issuance of any grading or building permit for any phase of the project, the applicant shall submit a report from a qualified energy consultant or design professional which details how the project design for the addition to the hospital, will exceed a,14g Attachment 13 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) Page 8 Title 24 energy requirements by at least 20% to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution Control District. GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 1. Construction documents shall be in accordance with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation reports(project number 1-0649)prepared by GSI Soils Inc. Monitoring Program: Prior to issuance of a City grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide the Chief Building Official with evidence that a qualified geotechnical engineering firm has been retained to monitor site preparation and construction as recommended in the geotechnical investigation reports(project number 1-0649) prepared by GSI Soils Inc. HYDROLOGY 1. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed in the new garage and at each on-site drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek through the storm water system. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to see that the such devices are regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. Monitoring Program: Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be clearly shown on plans submitted for architectural review and on construction documents. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. The applicant shall provide for replacement housing in a form acceptable to the Planning Commission and City Council to offset the loss of housing that will occur as a result of this project. Monitoring Program: Prior to issuance of any City permit for this project, the applicant shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. NOISE 1. All on-site generators shall be contained within an engineered enclosure with adequate intake and exhaust silencers to ensure compliance with City policies and standards for noise exposure. ( 1 Attachment 13 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) Page 9 2. All outdoor mechanical equipment shall be screened with a solid barrier or other device such as acoustical louvers to reduce noise levels in compliance with City policies and standards for noise exposure. 3. All exterior mechanical equipment proposed as part of this project shall be selected, configured, located, and housed in such a way as to ensure compliance with City policies and standards for noise exposure. 4. Construction activity shall comply with the City's noise ordinance in terms of noise levels and times of construction. Monitoring Program: Prior to City issuance of any application for grading or building, the applicant shall submit a report prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer which analyzes project compliance with required noise mitigation. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a qualified acoustical engineer shall field verify that equipment as installed complies with City polices and standards for noise exposure. TRANSPORTATION 1. The project shall include restriping Casa Street to remove existing parking and create a left and right turning lane onto Foothill. 2. The applicant shall provide subsidized public transit for employees to the satisfaction of the City Transit Manager for a minimum period of 5 years. 3. Bike lockers, bike racks, and designated shower facilities shall be shown on plans submitted to the City and to the State for a building permit to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. The project shall include relocation of Murray Street entrance further from the intersection with Santa Rosa Street. 5. Since the project is located on an established transit route, a transit turnout and new shelter are necessary. Direct pedestrian access to and from the shelter facility shall be constructed by the applicant. The shelter must meet City standards (to the satisfaction of the transit manager) and shall be delivered to the City' s Corporation Yard. The shelter and transit turnout will be installed by the City as part of the Foothill Bridge project. 6. The applicant shall dedicate necessary right of way (or an easement) along Foothill Boulevard for the new bus turnout, including an easement for the transit shelter, prior to issuance of any City building or grading permits, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. a ^ iso Attachment 13 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) Page 10 7. The applicant's traffic engineer shall work with Caltrans and the City of San Luis Obispo to improve signal operations at the Murray / Santa Rosa (Hwy 1) intersection. This may include a split phase operation to improve westbound egress from the Murray onto Santa Rosa. 8. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City and shall post a "Letter of Credit" or other cash equivalent surety to guarantee design and construction of a traffic signal and signal interconnect(s)at the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and Casa Street. 9. The agreement shall be effective for three (3) years after completion of the proposed Sierra Vista Hospital addition and shall include the following requirements: 10. The owner/applicant shall provide periodic monitoring of the intersection and/or nearby traffic operations, to determine the possible need for a traffic signal, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 11. The monitoring and resultant reports shall be prepared by the owner/applicant's traffic engineer and delivered to the Public Works Director. If it is determined that a traffic signal is necessary to mitigate traffic conflicts and operations, as determined by the Public Works Director, the owner/applicant shall pursue said construction within six (6) months of written notice by the Public Works Director. 12. The applicant shall prepare, submit to the Public Works Director for approval, and implement a Parking Demand Reduction (PDR) program applicable during Phase 1 of the project (Stages A and B) and during Phase 2 (Stage Q. The goal of the program is the reduce employee and patron demand for parking spaces by providing alternative management strategies (for employees) and access means (e.g. van pools, organized car pools, transit passes, and financial inducements that support alternative modes) for employees and patrons during times on-site parking is limited during construction. Monitoring Program: Prior to issuance of any City building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Director for review and approval: • a copy of the parking demand management plan for use during construction; • an agreement regarding the Casa/Foothill signal; and • documents granting necessary dedication and easements for the bus turnout and shelter. Required physical improvements shall be shown on the plans for architectural review and project grading and construction and shall be installed prior to City issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the garage. Ordinance No. (2003 Series) Attachment 13 Page 11 SOLID WASTE 1. A recycling plan for demolition and construction activity shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to start of construction or issuance of any City demolition, building, or grading permits Monitoring Program: The applicant shall provide evidence of compliance to the Chief Building Official prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings: 1. Amending the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning for property at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard from High-Density Residential to Office, as shown on Exhibit A, is the appropriate means of implementing the amendment to the Land Use Element Map initiated with application GP/R 145-01, and will ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed change in land use for property at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard, as shown on Exhibit A, is consistent with General Plan polices related to the location of medical facilities, retention of existing businesses, and the City's desire to serve as a hub for medical services. 3. Adjusting the land use boundary to reduce land designated as residential is appropriate in this case because a significant, long-term citywide need for medical services outweighs the preference to retain residential capacity at the affected location. The expansion of hospital services are best accommodated at the proposed location. SECTION 3. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment(R 145-01) is hereby approved. SECTION 4. 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. INTRODUCED on the 1 st day of April, 2003, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of , 200_, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Attachment 13 Ordinance No. (200_Series) Page 12 Mayor David Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4Y nterim Ci ttor it Trujillo G:/GROUPS/COMDEV/CD-PLAN/lazcvedo/Ordinances/145-01 Sierra Vista Ord. o-C^ IS`3 } n 1 • TN J^1'. 4y f �F t YI�. • �' � � � \�, �� fix' i aim `�� 1 �a s a � b yr j Attachment A RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT APPLICATION U 145-01 ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AND NEW PARKING GARAGE FOR SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL AT 1010 MURRAY STREET; TENET CALIFORNIA HEALTH SYSTEMS,APPLICANT. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 24, 2002 and December 4, 2002, and conditionally approved Use Permit Application U 145-01 allowing nonresidential use in an office zone (hospital addition and parking garage) and a maximum garage height of 35 feet; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 1, 2003 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission;and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law. 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. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of Use Permit Application U 145-01, the Planning Commission's conditional approval, staff recommendations, appellant's input, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The architectural review process will ensure that the location, orientation, height, and mass of the new structures will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas. 2. With implementation of recommended traffic mitigation measures identified in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project's location and access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local streets in nearby residential neighborhoods. 3. The architectural review process will ensure that the project will include landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation from sites in nearby residential areas. Attachment 14 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 4. The proposed expansion of medical services is consistent with General Plan policies and appropriate at this location since the project site is already developed with a hospital and related medical services occupy most of the offices in the vicinity. 5. A maximum height of 35 feet for the parking garage, where 25 feet would otherwise be the maximum height allowed, is reasonably necessary in this case to accommodate adequate parking for existing uses on site and for the proposed 85,000 square foot addition to the hospital. SECTION 3. Deny Appeal[Uphold Planning Commission Approval. The appeal of use Permit Application U 145-01 is hereby denied and the Planning Commission's approval upheld subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. All recommended environmental mitigation shall be incorporated into the project. 2. Use permit approval shall be contingent upon project review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. 3. The location, orientation, height, and mass of the new structures shall not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas to the satisfaction of the Architectural review Commission. 4. The project shall include landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation from sites in nearby residential areas to the satisfaction of the Architectural review Commission. 5. Sierra Vista will install underground conduit for all above-ground wires with necessary pull boxes for (1) the frontage along Foothill beginning at the utility pole next to the Creek to the corner of Casa Street and (2) the frontage of Casa Street from the corner of Foothill Blvd. to the utility pole on the south side of Deseret. 6. The applicant shall install a new streetlight along Foothill Boulevard to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 7. All conditions of the resolution approving the final abandonment of Deseret Place shall be met to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to City issuance of any grading or building permits for this project. Attachment 14 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 3 On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 1st day of April, 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: Interim City A orney Il Trujillo G:/GROUPS/COMDEV/CD-PLAN/lazevedo/Resolutions/CC Reso 145-01 Sierra Vista—Use Permit approval appeal denial a-�S'1 Attachment 15 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 145-01 AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION) 145-01 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 1043/1045 FOOTHILL BLVD. FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE TO ALLOW A HOSPITAL EXPANSION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PARKING GARAGE FOR SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL AT 1010 MURRAY STREET AND UPHOLDING APPEAL OF USE PERMIT 145-01 TO ALLOW A HOSPITAL ADDITION AND ASSOCIATED PARKING STRUCTURE; TENET CALIFORNIA HEALTH SYSTEMS,APPLICANT. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 24, 2002 and December 4, 2002, for the purpose of considering Application GP/R/U/LLA/ER 145-01, a proposed General Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Use Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Sierra Vista Hospital and recommended approval of GP/R/ER 145-01 and approved U/LLA 145-01; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 1, 2003 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law. 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 does not adequately address the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of General Plan Amendment 145-01 and the Planning Commission's recommendation, the appeal of Use Permit 145-01, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed change in land use designation for property at 1043 and 1045 Foothill Boulevard, as shown on Exhibit A, is not consistent with General Plan polices related to the - (Sv Attachment 15 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 location of medical facilities, retention of existing businesses, and the City's desire to serve as a hub for medical services. 2. Adjusting the land use boundary to reduce land designated as residential is not appropriate in this case because the need for medical services does not outweigh the preference to retain residential capacity at the affected location. The expansion of hospital services are not best accommodated at the proposed location. 3. The architectural review process will not adequately ensure that the location, orientation, height, and mass of the new structures will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas. 4. A maximum height of 35 feet for the parking garage, where 25 feet would otherwise be the maximum height allowed, is not reasonably necessary in this case to accommodate adequate parking for existing uses on site and for the proposed 85,000 square foot addition to the hospital. (Council to specify findings to be used) SECTION 3. Denial. The request for approval of the General Plan Amendment and Environmental Review 145-01is hereby denied and the appeal of Planning Commission decision to approve Use Permit 145-01 is hereby upheld. On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 1st day of April, 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price � I Attachment 15 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Interim City 2AUfom�eyGil Trujillo O(r '�v 03/25/2003 16:37 9252998.125 MERCANTILE CAPITAL PAGE 02 LAKESIDE UALVESTON PARTNERS, LP March 25, 2003 RED FILE ME ING AGENDA CITY OF SAN LUIS0 0-I DATE 1 3 ITEM #a- - LIAR 2 5 2003 Ms. Lynn Azevedo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: 1043/1045 Foothill, San Luis Obispo: Sierra Vista Hospital Dear Ms_ Azevedo: We are nearby neighbors of the above referenced project due to our ownership of the Casa Bonita apartments(12 units) at 28-38 Casa Street. We also own the Murray Station Apartments(82 units)at 1262 Murray Str=L The purpose of this letter is to indicate our support for the hospital project including the use permit,rezoning, and general plan amcndinrjit. We also offer the following comments: a. Sierra Vista Hospital has been a good neighbor and offPcs cervices vital to our community. We feel that the referenced project will improve and help revitalize our neighborhood. e We feel that the hospital expansion can easily co-exist with the residential uses in the area. The contemplated improvements,including the medical offices and garage,will reduce congestion by providing additional parking and better traffic flow. • Without the facility upgrades,the ability of the hospital to offer the highest quality of care will be diminished. Don't let this occur. Please feel free to contact me as needed. Thank you for your assistance. Sim;erely, .d COUNCIL fd CAO jIF DD DIR,0ACRO IN DIR 9A1TbRNEY IRE CHIEF(2 CLERK/ORIG PI DIR James J.Keefe ❑ PT H DSOLICE CHF EC DIRTIL DIR JJK:)mc R DIR ubcdo gohq�niM3.Q7—014kky nfrto�saodo,kmm4fem.itla M,�nnl PO Box 648,ORmA,CA 94563 3 WELLESLEY COURT,LAIAYSTTE,CA 94549 (925)299-8120 FAcsimzLe(925)299-8125 • • -� ©"-� •-�� s � _�- - - 1- -� T r � � • � _ , II �• � I __ _ - - �. ! � ._ �' �� ,, �, t . � , '' e_ � ►`� �� •� .: . ,,, -- l `�� _ �. . .�j--__.-- � �' .r, � � _Yti�_ � :.�I� r � V� _ .� \ `.` i, � •� `� , \. i � �` �:. � • ' � � `` ',,,I ■ ,� I '' • \ ��-� r,4 ,,,, I . •_�iiU �� \ � I'.,....L�� ` \ �� r �r r� � �1 �� 1 I � �i � � � i � ' i ��„� �� o��o CYDNEY HOLCOMB 90S S94 0365 03/31/03 09:1Sam P. 001 ✓ �1I 1/� Asa Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604• San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 RED FILE FFEIVED DA�MEETING AGENDA 1 2003 ITEM 4Y CLERK DATE: MARCH 30, 2003 TO: SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL FAXED TO: 781-7.109 RE: MEETING DATE: 4-1-03; ITEM: PH-2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (GP/R/ER 145= 01) TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING OF 1043/1045 FOOTHILL BLVD, FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE AND CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE ASSOCIATED USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A HOSPITAL EXPANSION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PARKING GARAGE FOR SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL; 1010 MURRAY STREET; TENET CALIFORNIA HEALTH SYSTEMS, APPLICANT. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, For many months we have heard the Planning Commission and your Council discuss: the jobs/housing imbalance; the need for more "workforce" housing; the need to re-zone for mixed use and higher densities; and the need for large-scale employers to contribute toward the housing needs of their employees. Unfortunately, this project is the antithesis of these ideas. Sierra Vista Hospital is one of the largest employers within the City and County of San Luis Obispo. Presently, they have a workforce of 750 employees, and if their expansion is approved, that number will grow, by 350, to a total of 1,100 employees over a five (5) year period. [Initial Study, page 2-68]. They should be providing housing with this project.. We are supportive of the applicant's request to expand and enhance their facilities. Our concern, however, is with the proposal to change the zoning of two parcels of R-4 property to a non- residential use in order to build a parking garage. This proposal also includes the demolition of four (4) existing, usable dwelling units located on the property - that will not be replaced. In spite of the critical housing shortage, the mandates from the State, and the opportunity presented with this project to address a modicum of the housing problem, the Planning Commission took the approach that "the long term city-wide need for medical services outweighs the preference to retain residential capacity at the proposed location': (Agenda Report, page 2-4 and Attachment 6, page 2-11). It is hard for us to believe that the services being added, which will be duplicative of those currently provided at French Hospital, will create a need greater than the need for housing. Mr. Lopes in his appeal of the Planning Commission's decision with respect to Conditional Use Permit 145-01 has proffered several amendments which are supported Uae following General fa COUNCIO�CDD DIR ,0 CAO 2 FIN DIR Z(ACAO Z FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY B''PW DIR .'CLERK/ORIG r2 POLICE CHF Q-L Ef'T HEADS aZ' REC DIR Z UTIL DIR eHR DIR CYDNEY HOLCOMB 30S S64 0365 03/31/03 09:1Sam . P. 002 March 30, 2003_ SIERRA VISTA HOSPTfAL EXPANSION Page 2 Plan Policies: LU 1.4 - ]obs/Housing Relationship; LU 2.2.1 - Mixed Uses & Convenience; LU 2.2.7 - Housing and Business; LU 2.2.9 - Parking; LU 2.7.4 - Location; H 1.25.2 - Mixed-Use. [See: Attachment A ]. These amendments include theaddition of a residential component (mitigation for .the housing potential lost by rezoning the R-4 property); office, retail and service components; moving the block-long, three-story, parking garage away from Casa Street; and, retaining the ability to review parking demand with any new application in the future. RQN supports Mr. Lopes appeal in its entirety and would add that the mixed-use concepts being requested here are not only relevant to this project, but should become part of the norm for creating affordable and efficient workforce housing in this community. Accordingly, we request that you uphold the appeal and: 1. Amend the General Plan Land Use Element Map to change the land use designation from Office and High Density Residential to Office-Special Considerations and Mixed Use as specified on the map submitted by the appellant; and 2. Approve a use permit to modify Use Permit 145-01 in accordance with Items 1-3 as stated on Page 2 of the appeal. Respectfully submitted, Cy ney=olfbmb Chairperson, RQN Attachments: A. General Plan Policies c: lames Lopes, Appellant Lynn Azevedo, Associate Planner, CDD CYONEY HOLCOMB 90S 594 036S 03/31/03 09:1Sam P. 009 March 30,_2003 ATTACHMENT A SIERRA VISTA HOSPITAL EXPANSION Page 3 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES LU 1.4:jobs/Housing Relationship The gap between housing demand(due to more jobs and college enrollment)and supply should not increase LU 2.2.L• Mixed Uses & Convenience Neighborhoods shall include a mix of uses to serve the daily needs of nearby residents, including schools, parks,churches,and convenience retail stores.Neighborhood shopping and services should be available within about one mile of all dwellings. When nonresidential, neighborhood-serving uses are developed,existing housing shall be preserved.If existing dwellings are removed for such uses,the development shall include replacement dwellings. LU 2.2.7: Housing and Businesses Where housing can be compatible.with offices or other businesses,mixed-use projects should be encouraged. LU 2.2.9: Parking Large parking lots should be avoided.Parking lots should be screened from street views. In general,parking should not be provided between buildings and the street. LU 2.7.4:Location Housing likely to attract faculty or students should be encouraged to locate close to Cal Poly,to reduce commute travel. H L25.2: Mixed-Use Where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses,mixed-use residential/ commercial projects should be encouraged.