Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/02/2003, PH4 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING AND ADJUSTMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT LIMIT LINE TO ACCOMMODATE A 22 L 1 \ councils ,3 acEnaa izEpoin y CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ��.�� FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directo;CK, Prepared By: Philip Dunmore,Associate Planner SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING AND ADJUSTMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT LIMIT LINE TO ACCOMMODATE A 22 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 215 BRIDGE STREET. (GP/R/TR/ER 64-03). 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 for a portion of the site from Manufacturing and Conservation/Open Space to Medium Density Residential and Conservation/Open Space and adjust the hillside development limit line from the 175-foot contour to the 185-foot contour and approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 64-03). 2, Introduce an ordinance changing the zoning on a portion of the subject property below the 185-foot contour from Conservation/Open Space -5 (C/OS -5) to Medium Density Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (R-2-PD). 3. Adopt a resolution approving a 22 lot residential planned development with an affordable housing component and sustainable building features. REPORT-IN BRIEF The project is a request to develop a unique, sustainable and affordable housing project adjacent to Bridge Street at the base of the South Street Hills. It requires City Council approval since it involves a request to amend the General Plan and subdivide the property as a Planned Development. The Planning Commission reviewed the request to amend the General Plan Map, adjust the development limit line, and rezone the property to allow the residential subdivision on November 5, 2003. The Commission recommended the City Council approve the request, acknowledging that the project offered a significant contribution to the City in terms of environmental friendly development and affordable housing (see Attachment 3, Planning Commission staff report and resolution, and Attachment 4 meeting minutes). The project meets the required findings in order to approve the requested entitlements and is consistent with General Plan policies. City development review staff, including Fire, Public Works, and Utilities departments has found that the project can be accommodated at the site as proposed. If approved by the City Council the project will return to the Architectural Review Commission for a review of a final development plan, consistent with the PD district standards. Council Agenda Report GP/R/1R/ER 64-03 (215 Bridge Street) Page 2 DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 215 Bridge Street Applicant: Bridge Street Corporation General Plan: Services and Manufacturing and Conservation Open Space Zoning: Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) Environmental status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared (ER 64-03) Proiect.Descrintion The applicant has submitted an application to develop the existing property at 215 Bridge Street with a residential subdivision consisting of 20 new single-family residences. The property currently contains 2 residences, one of which would be demolished with the proposed development. In order to accommodate the proposed development, the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map and Development Limit Line would need to be amended. The property is currently designated for Manufacturing on the Land Use Map and is currently zoned open space on the City Zoning Map. The request would change the land use designation for this property to Medium Density Residential and change the zoning to Medium density residential-Planned Development (R-2-PD) with open space remaining on the property above the 185-foot contour. A Planned Development zoning designation would allow for a clustering of the density, unique lot sizes and setbacks that will help to preserve the hillside open space. Evaluation In order to support the project, the City Council will need to consider the findings that have been recommended by the Planning Commission. A set of findings has been developed in order to support the General Plan Amendment, including a shift in the Development Limit Line. Separate findings are required in order to support the rezoning and subdivision of the property. The detailed findings can be found in each of the attached resolutions for the project, Attachments 8, 9 and 10. The following discussion substantiates these findings as it evaluates the project in relation to the City's General Plan,Zoning Regulations, and environmental standards. General Plan Analysis A number of General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element policies support the proposed development. Most importantly this is a project that proposes a high percentage of affordable housing units that will be built with sustainable, energy conserving features. The project is consistent with the Housing Element goal of providing variety in the location, type, size, tenure, cost, style, and age of dwellings to accommodate the wide range of households desiring to live in the City. The following General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies pertain to the project: LU 6.2.0.Hillsides As discussed in the open space section, San Luis Obispo wants to keep open its steeper, higher, and most visible hillsides. Some of the lower and less steep hillside areas, however, are seen as l ' Q, Council Agenda Report GP/R/TR/ER 64-03 (215 Bridge Street) Page 3 suitable for development particularly where development is coupled with permanent open space protection of the more-sensitive areas. The proposed development is within a lower, fairly level area below the scenic resources and sensitive slope areas. LU 6.2.1:Development Limits Hillsides planning areas should have carefully chosen development limit lines, and special design standards for the areas that can be developed. The location of the development limit and the standards should cause development to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Open Space Element, and public health and safety problems related to utility service, access, wildland fire hazard, erosion, flooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards. Also, the development limit line and the standards should help protect the City's scenic setting. The proposed shift of the development limit line is consistent with this policy and would only allow the development to occur outside of the sensitive hillside area. LU 2.2.2: Separation and Buffering Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing businesses, traffic arteries, the freeway, and the railroad. Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities. With the exception of units 1-4, the proposed housing area will be buffered from commercial and industrial activities by a creek, slope, and significant tree cover. This site is not well suited for further commercial expansion. The property currently under a Services and Manufacturing designation on this site is not conducive to services or manufacturing development. The site is too small, narrow, and bounded by a creek and the South Street Hills. The size of the site and the surrounding natural resource areas make.the site far more conducive to small-scale residential development. An issue of land use compatibility was discussed extensively by the Planning Commission and is addressed later in this report. H5.LI: Variety Provide variety in the location, type, size, tenure, cost, style and age of dwellings to accommodate the wide range of households desiring to live within the City. The project provides a wide variety of units and proposes at least half of these units to be within the affordable range. H 9.1.1:Energy and Water Conservation Produce housing that is economical to occupy because it incorporates energy-saving and water- saving features. The proposed design plan proposes a number of energy efficient features that conserve both electricity and water. H 9.2.1:Energy Efficient Design In order to promote energy conservation and a clean environment, the City will encourage development of dwellings with energy efficient design, utilizing passive and active solar features, and the use of energy saving techniques that exceed the minimums prescribed by State law. Houses will be sited and designed to maximize solar efficiency. ,( `f' - s Council Agenda Report GP/RfTR/ER 64-03 (215 Bridge Street) Page 4 The project proposes to utilize appropriate solar orientation, window orientation, and a unique wall system that will maximize the insulation capabilities of the units. The end result will be a design that far exceeds the energy saving minimums prescribed by State law. H 2.3.5.Lower Cost/Energy Efficient Construction The City will review its building and planning regulations to find ways to allow construction by owner-builders of personalized, unconventional housing types that reduce cost and/or energy and materials consumption, provided that residential quality and safety can be maintained. The housing design is proposed to be an unconventional design that will reduce energy costs while maintaining a high quality. H 2.2.3: Creation and Preservation -Affordable Rental Housing The City will preserve and expand its supply of affordable rental housing. The project proposes a higher percentage of affordable housing-than is required by the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Property Development Standards and Planned Development If the City Council supports approval of the General Plan Amendment, then the Council will need to review the project for consistency with the Zoning Regulations and compliance with the property development standards. As discussed earlier, this project will have a Planned Development (PD) overlay zone that will allow specific property development standards to be adopted for the project. Following approval of the tentative parcel map and approval of land use entitlements, the applicant will be required to submit a final development plan that is consistent with the project's conditions. The PD will govern property development standards, including setbacks and lot coverage. Height of the structures will be limited to 25 feet, consistent with the R-2 district. The site's overall density cannot exceed the density of the R-2 zoning district and, as proposed, will be built well below the allowed density of R-2. The primary purpose of the PD zoning will be to allow the density allocated to the 2.67-acre site to be clustered within the level building area at the base of the hills. Additionally, the PD zoning will allow lot sizes of any size or shape. Approval of a PD will allow the sustainable site planning and building features to be incorporated into the project without requiring a series of exceptions to the standard subdivision regulations. Specific findings are required in order to approve a PD, and this project meets all of the necessary findings (see findings in Attachment 10). In summary, the site and type of housing proposed, and clustering of the development away from areas of sensitivity, is consistent with the purpose of the PD district. Planning Commission Review/Citizen Participation Initially, the Planning Commission reviewed this project on a conceptual level on October 22, 2003. Following public testimony and direction by the Planning Commission, the applicant returned to the Commission for action on November 5, 2003. The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to adopt a resolution to recommend approval of the project to the City Council. Following extensive public input, the Planning Commission examined the following issues: 1. Parking: nearby residents are concerned the site does not supply enough parking. The proposed site plan supplies more than the minimum parking required by the Zoning Ordinance for R-2 development. The parking calculations include parking for proposed,f , r `i `-i Council Agenda Report 1 GP/R/TR/ER 64-03 (215 Bridge Street) Page 5 secondary dwelling units, visitors and bicycles. Staff does not recommend that the project provide more parking than is required by code. The Planning Commission supported the parking plan and private street improvements. 2. Open Space Zoning: Some adjacent residents feel that the project will result in a loss of City Open Space land. Although currently zoned for open space, the General Plan, which is intended to guide zoning, designates the area proposed for development for manufacturing land uses. No development is proposed on public open space property. The project will resolve a discrepancy between the Zoning and General Plan Maps. The Land Use Map identifies property below the 175-foot contour as Manufacturing and property above as Open Space. The Zoning Map identifies the entire property as open space. In 1995 the City amended the development limit line from the northern boundary of this site up to its present 175-foot contour location. This amendment should have included a Zoning Map amendment to zone the land consistent with the general plan land use map and the hillside development limit line, however it did not. The Zoning Map remains inconsistent with the General Plan Map and identifies Open Space for the entire property. Regardless of the action on the proposed project, the Council should offer direction to staff. The Zoning map should be consistent with the General Plan map in accordance with State Law. 3. Open Space and Conservation Easements: This project will result in a no-net-loss of open space through the use of proposed open space easements to be recorded onto the property as identified within Exhibit D of the applicants reduced scale plan in Attachment 2. Land Use Element Policy 6.2.3 which states: "Before development occurs on any parcel which crosses the urban reserve line or development limit lines, the part outside the line shall be protected as permanent open space." The project proposes to record a conservation open space easement for all portions of the development site that will extend above the 185-foot contour. Parcel 22 on the hillside, however, will remain under separate private ownership outside of the development area and is not proposed to contain an additional easement. This is the property that currently contains the existing residence visible on the upper hillside. The City Council should determine whether an additional easement should be placed on the separate hillside property. The appropriate type of easement would be a private open space easement that would prohibit construction of structures but still allow landscape and drainage improvements. 4. Site drainage: Neighbors raised concern with site drainage and flooding. As required by staff, the applicant provided a preliminary drainage analysis of the site. The analysis supports the proposed development and suggests methods of mitigating any drainage concerns. The Public Works department has reviewed the drainage analysis and supports the preliminary concept. The design has been modified to respond to the suggestions and provides an on-site drainage basin and other features that reduce the potential drainage impacts to a less than significant level. Prior to construction of the project a hydrology report will be required in order to demonstrate compliance with City drainage regulations and the Building Code. The lower portion of the site nearest Bridge Street and the parking lot on the adjacent property is within a B flood zone subject to shallow flooding during 100- year storm events. Commercial buildings already exist within this zone. As proposed, the units within this vicinity would have carports or garages on the first level and would ` _ 1. Council Agenda Report GP/FJT AR 64-03 (215 Bridge Street) Page 6 otherwise be designed consistent with the building code for the site circumstances. The proposed development and preliminary drainage analysis identifies that drainage conditions will not be impacted. 5. Land Use Compatibility: As mentioned above, concerns with the close proximity of residential development to established manufacturing uses were raised. The primary area where this would occur would be the four units located along the corridor to Bridge Street which runs adjacent to the Bailey Bridge building. Staff's original recommendation to Planning Commission was to leave the property nearest the existing manufacturing building within a manufacturing district and allow the applicant to develop a Work/Live unit that provides a workspace with an incidental living unit. As required by the Work/Live ordinance (Zoning Code chapter 17.08.120) the units would be required to have a deed disclosure that would require property owners and tenants to acknowledge the adjacent manufacturing use and potential exposure to noise, fumes, dust and other manufacturing related criteria. Since the work live component would have substantially reduced the affordability of the units, introduce parking and access concerns, and be difficult to finance for the applicant, the Planning Commission agreed that a 100% residential land use was reasonable for this portion of the property. In order to disclose the potential for noise impacts to future residents, the units nearest the Manufacturing use would have a deed disclosure similar to the disclosure required of Work/Live units as a condition of the Planned Development. The units can be designed to be compatible with the adjacent land uses through appropriate building design and deed disclosures. The project conditions require deed disclosures for the properties, and the project design proposes wall construction that will result in insulation factors far superior to that of building code requirements. The wall insulation alone can mitigate potential noise issues. 6. Affordable Housing: Adjacent residents expressed concern that the affordable housing units would be utilized as student housing. The applicant has stated that the project will be solely "for sale" housing on independent lots and the units will be required to be owner occupied as part of the Planned Developments CC&R's. Staff has clarified that the proposed "affordable" units available in the moderate affordable category would have to be sold through an approved lottery system similar to homes at De Vaul Ranch. The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires residential development projects of 5 units or more to provide at least 5% of the units as moderately affordable units or pay an in lieu fee equal to 5% of the housing valuation. The applicant is proposing to construct at least 50% of the units to meet the guidelines for moderately affordable housing. The applicant has drafted an affordable housing agreement that has been included as attachment 5. Projects that dedicate at least 25% of the units as affordable housing are eligible for incentives such as a density bonus, fee-waivers, fee reductions or other incentives that the City deems appropriate. The City Council must approve the incentives that will be offered to the applicant. For this project the applicant is not seeking the typical incentives such as a density bonus or fee waivers. Instead they are asking the Council to simply grant approval to the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map change to allow the project to be Council Agenda Report GP/RfIR/ER 64-03 (215 Bridge Street) Page 7 developed to a medium density residential designation similar to the density along Exposition Drive. 7. Utilities/Sewer: The project has been reviewed by the Utilities Department and can be served by City utilities including water and sewer. The project will not have a private sewer system as speculated by public testimony. The project will be required to provide a sewer line that links with the City sewer system. As with any private driveway, the homeowners will be responsible for portions of the sewer line that are on private property. 8. Fire Truck access: The project provides a cul-de-sac street that would be constructed to allow fire truck access. The Fire Department does not have concerns with the proposed design. Summary The sustainable components of the project captured the interest of a large sector of the community and in fact have already generated interest from other community leaders. The project is the first of its kind in that it proposes to incorporate two highly sought after components into one project: affordable housing and sustainable construction. These features support approval of a Planned Development overlay zone as intended by the City's PD regulations. The project provides for an ecologically sensitive housing development on a site that already contains a developed driveway and existing residences. It allows the City to implement a series of General Plan policies that support affordable housing, open space preservation, and energy conservation. The adjustment of the development limit line does not conflict with adjacent developed properties; will not allow new construction on the slopes of the South Street hills, or set precedence for additional development on neighboring properties. If the City Council grants approval to the request, the project will be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for a review of the project design. If the ARC approves the project, a final subdivision map would have to be submitted for review by the City's Public Works Department and a Final Development Plan and affordable housing agreement would have to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. As stated by the project conditions, all of the sustainable building concepts, the inclusionary housing proposal, the site density, and the general layout of the buildings including all proposed open space easements would become a part of the Planned Development. Any changes to these project components would require an amendment to the Planned Development and additional review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department has found that the proposed rezoning and General Plan amendment will have a negligible affect on area traffic and public improvements. The Public Works Department concurs with the drainage analysis and proposed project plans. The Utilities department has stated the project can be accommodated with City services including water and sewer. The City's Natural Resources Manager has visited the site and concurs with the development as proposed. Additional discussion can be found in the attached Planning Commission staff report. ' I Council Agenda Report `- GP/R/TR/ER 64-03 (215 Bridge Street) Page 8 FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Amending the General Plan for this location will not significantly alter revenues since the new designation will not result in a significant loss of property within the Manufacturing district. The areas size and configuration would not be expected to generate significant revenues if developed with Services and Manufacturing. The City's primary services and manufacturing areas are within the south perimeter of the City and within the airport area. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue review of the proposal with specific direction to the applicant and staff. 2. Approve a resolution denying the proposed request, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale plans 3. Planning Commission meeting minutes 4. Planning Commission Agenda Report and resolution 5. Draft Inclusionary Housing Proposal 6. Existing General Plan Land Use Element map 7. Existing and Proposed Zoning Map 8. Draft Resolution adopting General Plan Amendment 9. Draft Resolution approving 22 Lot subdivision 10. Draft Ordinance adopting zone change from C/OS-5 to R-2-PD and C/OS-5 11. Draft Resolution for Denial of the project. Council Reading File Items: 1. Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Letters received following release of the Planning Commission staff report 3. Affordable housing standards for 2003 4. Applicant design submittal 5. Full size tract map 6. Flood analysis map & written analysis 7. Chapter 17.08.120, of the Zoning Ordinance, Work-Live units 8. Chapter 17.62, of the Zoning Ordinance, Planned Developments GAPdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\GPR 64-03 Bridge Street PD\GPR 64-03 Council Report.doc T—O ��111 1 _ ®E �11Mm WM111!=!�11 1111_: R �Tllflllllli�^III�III�'lll��ll 1f1�111 � n �,�� " ■ ufr Ilan �Qi�j�`� �, �44�444�,HH� ME • ��� ik 4an. �, lar .luau ''' . .,, �� �.if16i� �Yfllif� li�l���'�l��i� iNl�l► �_ � illllr �IIIII� • oil moll ,. ✓■ • gin I III pp No r • • "In 's i �q11� ti VICINITY MAP 215 BRIDGE • Attachment 2 k ---------------------------------------- J , , � 1 J , � I ,l , J , i c 2^ , W J c m w e A Q Attachment 2 k I , a s ` ' c J' c d I o d m , m � o a N N a X a I ---- ------- ----------� LLI a A o Attachment 2 k ---------------------------------------- Ui � 1 O CL cis Cl) 1 ' Q 4) CL N y M y I Ip W J 1 O m Z M I � Z I m d I O c I I — O �Q 7 m � " C m I N r X a0 W 2 �, ke H N R ` - Attachment 2 i — — ----------------------------------------- , I , , , 1 m , a ; 1 � I ;--- a , I c , CL O v 0) m � ' ' C y I OO I ✓, C cL x Q� , F9 - , -- - -----------------------------------------� N N N � ® e �-, f3 Attachment 2 w m 'o L a as m L N L W ICAO It ,. J • 2 L 4U �► �1.J Z � o 4.4 Co kLo LLx W c .Cn 3Co C ch O L 0 Cu Attachment 2 d 'o L a a� d L U) 4) CD AML W a. O L �C: 4-j 4 y. 0 Cu Q Cu Cu J W 0 Cu T. J cD N I '- O U) N Attachment 2 a U Z �8mma w p $ o It'E J Hm W Q e-` o8 O mg m s d CO F m m Pgco Z mE a i >- (D m2L 0 CO nal `� `` ►. fAm } m8 XQmm m CO mcmc m m U)� CO LL m0� O —=o' J Z m Q� a ~ W3 �a Q �Ecc a V O E.9 Oc.S 3 m.g Q 5 $o ,0 L. 2p mpem - Q cQ_yq _ {3 8G mmG a: c- Y Z,G bSOJ 1` Q+ so m•• tH CRXI to _ZSgh � Yc ,� Q a U)E£ Y. UO�m ��_ Omo O <RaIL Eq Qoa t O=m F Y F O L C aim Omm iq Z 0► J m 0 O c 6 m U s ULL Sm fig �• � � h � C. �YBz a Wmill Q80 E Zs 4) Zm � g � - m Q U. = mgDQE c JEc L � LL W } E� QE. O$f� „ NmD O�gc° V Qp 88 Vo Qsn 1<4 00 CO �mm Qmm7$ QEo _jE2g .,"�. �, -`; � •�`r °� ~c3 ¢DfggQ �Em Wm$ Qb= CCeopm O .S"� 1+ � Z 3ar ¢EE Q1� Q� m z O o r �� Y a: (LB ESEEM U `o Lq w2..0 s V C0.2 Qmm Z mgU CO a :.' CC E ZS (rS� �g� U_se 0EEot W�?gt , UJ mum ROME Q=m � c > g � •�. .. Zig r Qcgc$E � gm ZEBU� 00 N Attachment 2 � Y Q U 0 Nos O om U a W m� W ° � ¢ f; R: W U m m -j 00 F m$ Y c Zmm �� r W EC O U3m i $ WO;o -00 demo d WL ° Q m Qn°m ¢��mg �J7E Q DEO Y< � Q a (!)E OEcm Z �$m O O$ C g �mO 0O2_mmrom OZ_m ° ¢ mP� )1O Fr (D QO a:00 aWQ0Wm_' �'mUQ Fr 0000 Qmo mam CIR C LUm5� mpa mm � m OEmmj Attachment 3 Draft SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISISON MINUTES November 5, 2003 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 5, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh, James Caruso, Michael Boswell, Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson Orval Osborne Absent: None Staff: Associate Planners Phil Dunsmore and Michael Codron, 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 COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed concerns regarding development of the R-1 zone and disapproval of the proposed Sunny Acres project. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 215 Bridge Street. GPA, PD, TR and ER 64-03: Request to allow General Plan amendment and Zone Reclassification for a housing development, including a tentative tract map for a 20-lot residential planned development subdivision, and Environmental Review; Bridge Street Corporation, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a resolution amending the General Plan Map for a 12,000 square foot portion of the site from Conservation/Open Space to Medium-Density Residential; adjust the hillside development limit line from the 175-foot contour . to the 185-foot contour; approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning on the property from C/OS-5 to R-2-PD and M-PD; and adopt a resolution approving a 22-lot residential planned development with an affordable housing component and sustainable building features. Attachment i3 Draft Planning Commission,Minutes November 5, 2003 Page 2 Planner Dunsmore noted the Commission conceptually reviewed this project on September 10, 2003, took public testimony and gave direction to the applicant. The applicant is now presenting the project with that direction. He gave a detailed explanation of the various components of the proposal. Commr. Cooper asked if the applicant is prepared to relinquish lots 1-8, which are the work-live units. Planner Dunsmore responded the proposal would be to utilize lots 1-4 as a work-live component with the manufacturing zoning and lots 5-8 would have residential zoning similar to the rest of the hillside. Commr. Cooper questioned the location of the new development limit line and asked if lots 20 and 21 were the two lots that were in the C/OS zone. He noted that it appears the property to become permanent open space will more than make up for lots 20 and 21, resulting in no net loss of Conservation/Open Space. Planner Dunsmore responded yes. He also noted the applicant had found there was an additional acre that reverted to open space under an easement over what is actually there now, making that a gain in land that would be restricted. Commr. Loh expressed concern with the drainage, and noted that the houses on lots 20 and 21 are proposed directly over an existing swale. She referred to the environmental document, which does not address this issue. Deputy Director Whisenand noted that the previous proposal was to go from the 175- foot contour to the 195-foot contour. Since then, the applicant amended their application to go to 185-feet. He explained they are also proposing areas that were currently shown for development with conservation easements, so there will be a no net loss of open space. Although the development limit line will be moved up to the edge of the slope, additional open space areas will be created which will compensate for that. George Garcia, applicant's representative, noted they had obtained input from ECOSLO and the Sierra Club, and the issue of open space was an area of concern. He noted that these groups support the project if a no-net loss of open space can be achieved. The units are staggered for maximum exposure for solar gain, with much south facing glazing. He noted that all units will contain both covered and uncovered parking, noting the project is over-parked by one space, according to City standards. He also noted that 500% more bicycle parking is being provided to encourage use of alternative transportation. He mentioned the mix of studio units above two-car garages, noting the architecture responds directly to the sustainable functions of the buildings. Mr. Garcia felt that discussion on development limit lines and its relation to contour is inappropriate. He commented that it had been said that raising the development limit line would set a precedent, and noted they cannot go above the 175-foot contour. However, the majority of Meadow Park and Woodbridge is not only above the 175-foot contour, but above the 195-foot contour. Therefore, he asked that neighborhood development patterns be followed. He pointed out the issue of the viewshed and what the project will look like from the Meadow Park area. He explained how required open � � 9 Attachment 3 Draft Planning CommissbwMinutes November 5,2003 Page 3 space would be provided. He noted the areas of deed-restricted permanent open space easements and explained that the open space parcel is privately held not City open space. However, deed restrictions will dictate that no development will occur on these parcels. He also noted an additional area the applicant is willing to dedicate as permanent easement open space, which is slightly less than one acre, and is logically located in and around the units. Tom Dissanto, Garcia Architects, spoke to the issue of environmental demise. He noted it is important to think about sustainability in architecture, as well as affordability. He briefly discussed the following issues and how they are dealing with sustainability: 1) A water capture system which will capture the water that falls onto the property in cisterns that will recharge the water table and/or irrigate the landscaping; 2) Natural day lighting; the inverted gable that helps catch the water opens up to the sun giving natural daylight, which reduces the need for power; 3) Non-toxic interior materials, using materials that do not off gas or have VOC's or HFC's; 4) Cool roofs which are reflective roofs that reduce the heating into the homes eliminating the thermal island heat effect and reducing the overall cooling load; 5) Gray water systems which recycle bath and laundry water for irrigation; 6) Thermal mass which is obtained through concrete floors that are left exposed, extra drywall, and concrete countertops, both of which retain the heat from the sun and re-radiate it throughout the day and allows more glazing on the south; 7) Passive solar heating and orientation of all buildings to south or 15 degrees of south in either direction to maximize the use of the sun, thereby reducing energy costs; 8) Outdoor rooms where the livability of the house can be brought outdoors, using natural sun cycles. 9) Non-toxic materials on the outside; 10) Active roof systems, using the sun to create electricity as well as solar water heaters; 11) Skin and bone systems which is a steel structure with a malleable skin that changes with the climate. Mr. Dissanto described the sound attenuation systems that are being provided on the work-live units. Some site features he illustrated include 1) replacing the existing asphalt driveway with permeable grasscrete that is strong enough to support Fire Department vehicles while allowing percolation for vegetative recovery and base flow recharge. 2) Creek bank preservation with large setbacks, 3) Edible landscaping corridor which reduces reliance on gas powered vehicles and encourages neighborhood participation; 4) site restoration involving remediation of the existing brambles creating a wildlife corridor from open space; 5) electric car sharing where neighborhood vehicles would be provided for the community; 6) pedestrian/bike path to the open space via a decomposed granite path; 7) communal gardens; 8) vegetated contour swales which will slow the water flow down, working it throughout the site, with runoff going to the next plateau and using French and mirror drains at landscape walls to keep the water away from the buildings; 9) Chevron-shaped rock gabion walls will help ameliorate the condition at the start of the culvert, reducing erosion and prohibiting the loss of soil while irrigating the orchards; 10) water recycling; 11) visual congruity to open space, and through CC&R's will prohibit the use of fences, poodle runs, etc.; 12) reduced site density to ensure solar access for all units; 13) Distinction between exclusive and non- exclusive use by means of CC&R's; 14) Bicycle parking which includes 35 bicycle parking spaces to encourage alternate transportation. George Garcia spoke on the issue of drainage. He noted that for units 1-8 near the creeek, they propose carports that are open on all sides in the event of a 100-year 4 ' 01,10 i� Attachment 3 Draft Planning Commission, Minutes November 5, 2003 Page 4 flood, so that water will pass through 50% of the building. He also noted the combination of solids and voids makes for an interesting architectural.design. Mr. Garcia noted a drainage analysis prepared by his civil engineer required them to mitigate about 3,500 cubic feet of runoff during a 100-year storm event. This can be accomplished with a surface basin or an underground basin. In addition to a surface basin, a secondary containment basin would serve a 200% increase in the capacity. They also propose to use a water harvesting system that takes the water from the site through the drainage swales and around the buildings through contour swales. The water contained in the water harvesting system will be used for irrigation and reuse. It was clarified that the rock gabion walls are designed as "mini basins" to retain water, retard water, recharge the groundwater and once saturated, it will flow to the next one, and the next one through micro-infiltration, migrating through swales around the buildings as it reaches its final destination at the creek. Mr. Garcia explained that an Affordable Housing Agreement has been prepared and the project meets the minimum 5% affordable housing via physical construction — no in-lieu fees, noting they intend to build up to 50% of these units (1-12) and sell them as affordable, and will meet or exceed all City requirements for a planned unit development. He reiterated the lots would be deed restricted as long-term affordability with a 30-year minimum, with owner-occupancy requirements. Commr: Boswell questioned if lots 1-4 are manufacturing work-live units limited to a maximum of 1,000 square feet of floor area, and if so, do they meet the maximum requirement that 30% of the floor area shall be utilized as living space. He also felt the definition states the intent is to support some sort of business operation which is the primary use and thus would presumably dictate the design of the unit, with the ancillary use for residential. He also questioned what uses would be allowable, such as a small retail shop. George Garcia responded that they are requesting the entire property be zoned R-2, mainly for the affordability aspect. If residential units are built on M-zoned property, the bank has indicated it will be difficult to obtain financing. In addition, the affordability will no longer be possible due to commercial lending at commercial rates for those four units. He noted that live-work units in the R-2 zone could be sold as affordable units. Deputy Director Whisenand clarified the following definitions: Live-Work is not allowed in the R-2 zone or the M zone. The M zone would allow Work-Live units, which is what staff is recommending for lots 1-4. He clarified that that Zoning Regulations regulate the uses allowed in these zones. Commr. Loh agreed with staff's recommendation regarding the Work-Live units. Deputy Director Whisenand clarified that staff's recommendation is not the applicant's preference in that they would prefer residential zoning for units 1-4. However, because of input received from previous meetings regarding commercial and industrial activities in the area, staff felt it would be a better fit and a good transition between the residential in the hillside area and the commercial area that exists on Bridge Street. Attachment 3 Draft Planning Commission, ,dinutes November 5,2003 Page 5 Commr. Aiken expressed concern with the grasscrete being considered a permeable surface, especially under masonry products because by the time there is an adequate base with compaction under the grasscrete to support large vehicles, it is virtually impermeable at that point. George Garcia responded that the product they are proposing is a proprietary product that uses extruded and recycled plastic that is a high-strength density; under that is a special mix of soil that contains granular fill of decomposed granite as well as plantable soil. The combination of that specific designed soil will not compact in such a way that water can permeate down. He agreed that it is somewhat different from usual grasscrete or turf pavers where a certain amount of compaction is required. However, if this product is determined to be impractical, the drainage calculations will remain valid. Commr. Aiken then expressed concern over the pedestrian/bike path, its routing, and potential conflict with Exposition Park neighbors. Mr. Garcia explained that the path is intended to protect the residents of the Woodbridge area in that it is intended to be used only by the inhabitants of the new subdivision to access the open space on the south side hills. It is not intended as a linkage, a trail, or path to Woodbridge Street. He also noted the units will be sold in a graded lottery system, which he described. The number of vehicles will have a weighted value in the lottery. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Helene Finger, 473 Woodbridge Street, spoke to the discrepancy between the General Plan Land Use Map and the City's Zoning Map. She felt staff has incorrectly identified the reasoning for this discrepancy as a result of a 1981 rezone request. She referred to a staff report prepared for a June 28, 1995 meeting where this entire parcel was identified as Conservation/Open Space, both in zoning and land use designation. She felt the change to the development limit line was misinterpreted to a change in the land use designation and it was the intent of staff at that time for the entire parcel to remain open space (C/OS-5). Planner Dunsmore responded that the report being referred to was for a request to adjust the development limit line to the 175400t contour; it was not an application to amend the General Plan or Zoning maps. It discussed the zoning as being open space, as it currently is, but did not discuss the General Plan as being open space. The majority of the parcel has an Open Space designation and the property below the 175- foot contour is Manufacturing. Peter Brown, 427 Lawrence Drive, felt this project is an astounding project with a tremendous level of quality, detail and design. Given the setting, he felt this is an appropriate location for this type of a project. Russy Parvin, landscape architect, supported the project and hoped to see other similar projects built in the city. Attachment 3 Draft Planning Commission Minutes November 5,2003 Page 6 Sonner Saru, Trustee for ECOSLO, expressed support for the project. She felt this project could serve as a model for future development. It creates affordable housing and is a comprehensive, well-designed project using truly sustainable practices. She felt the design is unique and creative, and helps preserve the environment. She noted ECOSLO's concern that there be no net loss of open space and yet have a project that incorporates the principals of sustainability, provides affordable housing, and protects the environment. She asked that the Commission support the project. Laurent Bernard, 3222 Via Ensualo, Atascadero, strongly supported the project. He felt the most attractive points of this project are sustainability and affordability, and noted that families are moving out of the city because they cannot afford to live here. He presented several letters from other concerned citizens supporting the project. Joe Gilpen, 1334 Palm Street, stated this project has excellent potential that is adding new units to the city, is within walking and biking distance to the downtown, and will have electric cars that can be used for errands. Reducing the need for travel is a key issue that this project addresses, as well as being ecologically sustainable. Minka Prinz, supported the project because of its uniquely progressive blend of sustainability and affordability, with emphasis on affordability. Melanie Matina, 314 Corrida Drive, expressed her concerns with parking. She supported the idea of an electric car, but did not feel it will accommodate the needs of that community, and that vehicle usage will remain high. She asked where guest parking would be accommodated. She also was concerned with secondary units as affordable units in that they will most likely be used as rentals, as well as people renting out rooms in these homes, and questioned how this would be enforced. Larry Allen, (Director of the APCD), 2436 Cima Court, felt this is a dream project, from an air quality perspective because it is consistent with all land use recommendations in the Clean Air Plan, provides compact, medium-density development which increases the viability of all types of alternative transportation, and has a bus stop nearby. He was impressed with the active solar design that reduces the impact on the electricity grid. He felt the project supports the Housing Element with affordable housing. He supported the property being zoned R-2, as requested by the applicant, and asked that the project be approved. Larry Santoyo, consultant for Garcia Architects, had initial concerns with drainage, but felt the issues have been adequately addressed, including capillary action. Derek Senn, real estate agent, expressed support for the project. He acknowledged that it is difficult, if not impossible to get conventional residential financing in the M zone, which could be a problem for someone looking for affordable housing; commercially- zoned properties have a higher interest rate and require 20-25% down payment. He felt this is a fantastic project and was impressed with all that the applicant has agreed to put into the project, and should be commended for it. Dan Collell, SLO resident, felt this is a fantastic project and hoped the planners will be as progressive in thinking and looking at new alternatives as the architects are. 4. 3r6 Draft Planning Commissic,.. .Ainutes Attachment 3 November 5, 2003 Page 7 Drew Lynch, SLO resident, said she cannot afford a home in San Luis Obispo, but this project is very exciting with the affordability component. She was impressed with the community aspect of the development, and encouraged the Commission to support the project. (Name inaudible) supported the water harvest system behind her house because of flooding problems that occur every year. She noted that affordable housing is essential and wondered why apartments cannot be added to the top on the existing strip malls. She also noted concerns with lack of disabled access to the homes and that to get to the first living level requires climbing stairs. She noted other areas of concern as parking, sewers, and purchase and maintenance of the electric vehicles. Jody Bennett, SLO resident and ECOSLO board member, endorsed the project and its sustainability aspects and water harvesting features. Willie Zilkie, 262 Woodbidge Street, expressed confusion as to whether or not the property is open space. She also noted existing parking problems on Bridge Street and wondered if overflow parking from the proposed community will go onto Bridge Street or Woodbridge Street making use of the proposed open space pathway. Mark Wilson, 2103 Cypress Street, supported the project because of its environmental and affordability aspects. He felt it is a rare opportunity when a developer can propose this type of project without a financial contribution from the city. He also felt the approval should include total R-2 zoning. Commr. Cooper interjected that the project could not be approved if the entire site were zoned R-2 because Work-Live or Live-Work units are not allowed in any residential zone. Planner Dunsmore noted that the applicant would prefer the entire site be zoned R-2, but staff is recommending the Work-Live option. Phillip Novotney, 2557 Greta Street, supported the project with a complete R-2 zoning; noting the City desperately needs affordable housing. John Cutter, 557 Buchon Street, expressed his excitement with this project and its sustainability, infill, and access to town. He felt this project will be an example for the entire State and encouraged the Commission to approve it. Lori Atwater, 1351 Oceanaire Drive, felt approving this project will help transform the building industry in this community. It will be a source of education to contractors, not only in the housing industry but the commercial industry because the technology involved is appropriate for housing, industrial and commercial buildings, and churches. She asked the Commission to help this project go forward. Gina Sindrich, Exposition Court, expressed concerns with parking, noting it is currently impossible to find available parking on Bridge Street. She felt the burden of the overflow parking would go to the already impacted Exposition, Cordda and Woodbridge( Draft Planning Commissio„ Anutes Attachment 3 November 5,2003 Page 8 Streets. She also noted concerns with drainage and the potential creek flooding. She felt the goals of the project are admirable, however, did not support the location of it. Kay Webster, 2297 Exposition Drive, expressed a number of concerns, including parking, noise and increased traffic generated from the Work-Live units, and delivery trucks and fork lift usage and lack of-turn-around. Eric Meyer, 1241 Pismo Street, felt it takes guts to build affordable housing in San Luis Obispo, and supported this "poster quality" project with all R-2 zoning. Damon Noler, 878 Upham Street, felt there couldn't be a more sensitive project that can exhibit what can be done in San Luis Obispo as far as infill and affordable housing to meet the growth needs of the future. He stronglysupported the project. Bob Zilkie, 362 Woodbridge Street, expressed concerns with flooding and the water that will come down from the canyon. He noted that.a 1997 storm caused water to come down that hill and over the curb across the street. He also noted existing parking problems, and felt this project will further impact the parking situation. Dodie Williams, 438 Woodbridge Street, presented a photograph of Bridge Street, visible to Higuera Street, illustrating the lack of available parking. She noted the parking lot for the Westwind Center is also full, and asked that the parking issue, specifically for the granny units and guest parking, be addressed. She felt the project has merit, but felt it is a social experiment. She noted that, according to the City's Utilities Department, on-site sewer systems are allowed because the street system within the subdivision is substandard and the City cannot get their utility vehicles in there, so homeowners' associations maintain the sewer system that connects to the City's system. She expressed concern with the cost for maintenance of the edible vegetation proposed, and felt the electric vehicles should be a requirement if the project is approved, and finally noted the work-live units could create immediate noise issues and employee parking problems. She submitted a petition from neighborhood residents expressing the same concerns. Deputy Director Whisenand clarified that a parking calculation has been provided, and compliance with the City's Parking Regulations is being met. Calculations included all the units including the secondary dwelling units, and provided guest parking to City standards. He noted the project is one space over the requirement. Bob Kriser, President of the Corporation developing this project, explained this is a non- profit corporation that has no interest in making money on this project. They are committed to providing every possible affordable unit that they can, and that they have a social responsibility to give something back. He reiterated that they have not asked for work-live units, but for R-2 zoning, and felt it is imperative to the project. He felt the Work-Live will create additional efforts to provide affordable housing. Mr. Kiser clarified that you cannot have an affordable rental housing unit and those units will be deed restricted against renters. He asked the Commission to step outside the box and support this project. Attachment 3 Draft Planning Commissio —Anutes November 5,2003 Page 9 Rick Hamlin, Baily Bridge Partner, submitted two letters for the record. He noted the importance of the compatibility with manufacturing nearby, and asked that it be thoroughly analyzed and a solution obtained before going forward with this project. He felt units 1-8 are particularly vulnerable. Lucy Silva, Atascadero resident, supported the project and the affordable units. Mary Jenny, 2282 Exposition Drive, felt the project is a wonderful project, but had concerns with the location. She hoped that the drainage channel in Meadow Park that causes the flooding in the area would be cleaned out, and noted her concern with parking. She suggested a traffic signal on South Street to mitigate potential traffic impacts. Troy Finger, SLO resident, felt that at the conceptual review of the project, staff was told this project would only develop a minor amount of open space, which he felt is incorrect. It was his opinion that every square foot of this development (2.67 acres) is on open space and is not to be developed, according to the 1995 City staff report GP 57-95 and the accompanying map that shows the property as open space. He felt this would result in a net loss of open space and requested the Commission postpone a decision at this meeting until an accurate description of this development and its impacts to the City can be made and reviewed. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Christianson, agreed that this may be an experiment, but one that must be made for the economic health and future of the City. She noted that parking is a problem in this city, but does not expect this project to fix it. She reiterated that the General Plan map indicates this property as manufacturing and open space, not all open space and the City is not loosing 2.5 acres of open space. She appreciated the applicant's willingness to dedicate permanent open space easements, and noted her main concern is to preserve affordability of this project. Commr. Christianson moved the Resolution as presented by staff, with the change that the zoning be changed to R-2 and.not include a manufacturing portion, and to ensure language is included with strong disclosures that there is a manufacturing use occurring at the flagpole area. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Commr. Loh applauded the sustainability of the project. She noted the need for housing, and suggested the applicant request additional units. She felt the project is much needed in the city with a lower than moderate cost, and supported the project. Commr Caruso asked for an amendment to the motion, to change the language in the Affordable Housing Agreement, as noted in Condition 3, to delete the words in the moderate income category yup to" so it reads " . . . the applicant intends to sell 50% of the total .units built " and amend Mitigation Measure 18 to read: "A maximum potential noise disclosure shall be recorded on. the deeds for lots 1-8. The maximum potential noise disclosure shall inform future tenants of lots 1-8 of the adiacent Attachment 3 Draft Planning Commissi,,., Minutes November 5, 2003 Page 10 manufacturing uses and potential noise traffic dust vibration and other emissions exposure." The motion maker and seconder accepted the amendments. Commr. Boswell said he could support the motion with the amendments, however he did not feel this was the ideal location for this kind of development project. He noted that there will probably never be an ideal project or location for infill or contiguous urban development, but wondered if the City can deal with the particular constraints associated with this project. He felt intrusion into the flood zone has been adequately addressed, and felt the City needs a project like this one. Commr. Aiken noted a major concern with inserting a residential zone between two manufacturing zones, and sandwiching eight units so close to the existing and potential manufacturing uses, and therefore could not support the project. He suggested that if the Commission supports the project, Section E of the Resolution relating to Work-Live Unit Findings should be deleted. He also suggested changing Mitigation Measure 47 under Transportation from a question to a definite condition by removing the second sentence. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Cooper, Loh. Christianson, and Osborne NOES: Commr. Aiken ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6:1 vote. Chairperson clarified to the audience that this is a recommendation to the City Council, who will take the final action on the project. 2. 225 North Chorro Street. TA, MS and ER 76-03 (SLO 03-0193): Request to amend the Subdivision Regulations to provide for lot size exceptions for common interest subdivisions, request to subdivide one existing lot into four lots and request for reduced side yard setbacks, including Environmental Review of project with 16 new apartments; R-4 zone; D.A. Fetyko, applicant. (Continued from August 27, 2003.) (Michael Codron) Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report recommending the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed subdivision, text amendment, Mitigated Negative Declaration, setback exceptions and affordable housing incentives, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. He explained the request is create four lots from one lot, and physical development of the property would include 16 apartments in four separate buildings. Four of the 16 apartments will be affordable to low- and moderate-income households, and the project also includes an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to allow common interest developments to have lots of any size or shape. Carol Florence, project planner, noted this revised project has benefited greatly from a two-month collaborative effort with the CHC, ARC and previous hearing by the Planning Commission, and asked the Commission to recommend approval of the project, as recommended by staff. 4 Attachment MY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM # 1 BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: November 5, 2003 FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director- Development Reviem�' FILE NUMBER: GP/R/ER/TR 64-03 PROJECT ADDRESS: 215 Bridge Street SUBJECT: Review of a request to amend the General Plan, adjust the development limit line and rezone the property at 215 Bridge Street to accommodate a 22 lot residential subdivision with an affordable housing component. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution which recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation for a portion of the site (approximately 12,000 square feet) from Conservation/Open Space to Medium Density Residential and adjust the hillside development limit line from the 175-foot contour to the 185-foot contour and approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 64-03). 2. Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning on the subject property from Conservation/Open Space -5 (C/OS -5) to Medium Density Residential and Manufacturing with a Planned Development Overlay(R-2-PD and M-PD). 2. Adopt a resolution approving a 22 lot residential planned development with an affordable housing component and sustainable building features. BACKGROUND Situation The Planning Commission conceptually reviewed this project on September 10, 2003. Since that time, staff and the applicant have prepared additional project and site research consistent with direction of the Planning Commission. The applicant is now requesting final approval of the project. Data Summary Address:215 Bridge Street Applicant: Bridge Street Corporation tet ' 00 Attachment �} GP/R/ER/rR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 215 Bridge Street Page 2 Zoning: Conservation/Open Space(C/OS) General Plan: Services and Manufacturing and Conservation Open Space Environmental status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration is currently being prepared (ER 64-03) Site Description The subject parcel is a 7.73-acre flag lot site with the narrow portion of the lot adjoining Bridge Street. The property is currently a single parcel and contains two residences accessible from a narrow, paved driveway. The rear of the property, behind the proposed development site, slopes up in a southward direction with slopes ranging from 20 to 25% and greater. The proposed development site on the property lies within a fairly level area at the base of this slope. It is bordered to the west by the Bailey Bridge Building and to the south by an open space area known as the "South Street Hills". The east side of the property borders City Open Space property that adjoins the South Street Hills, while an existing R-2 residential subdivision is located to the north east of the property. A seasonal creek intersects the lower portion of the property adjacent to Bridge Street. A narrow bridge over the creek allows vehicular access to the two existing residences on this property. Revised Project Description The applicant is proposing a General Plan Land Use Map amendment, adjustment of the development limit line and a rezoning as illustrated on the map exhibit, attachment 3. This proposal requests to shift the development limit line from the 175-foot contour up to the 185-foot contour, amend the General Plan Map for property below the 185-foot contour to Medium Density Residential and property above the i85-foot contour to remain as Conservation/Open Space. The previous conceptual review requested an amendment to the development limit line to the 195-foot contour, however upon additional investigation it was found that an adjustment to 185 will allow the project to be developed as proposed. The new Zoning Designation on the property would be R-2 for all property below the 185-foot contour and Manufacturing for property north of the creek. A.Planned Development overlay zone would be created to govern the specific property development standards for the residential development, allowing unique lot sizes and interior lot setbacks. The conceptual development plan for the site would include 25 residential units in the following configuration: Lots 1-4: 1-bedroom Work- Live residences in Manufacturing Zoning. Work Live units are predominantly workspaces with incidental living quarters. Lots 5-8: 825 square foot 2 bedroom residences in R-2 Zoning. Lots 9,10,13,14,16,17: 1,800 square foot 3 bedroom residences in R-2 Zoning. Lots 11,12,15: 450 square foot studio units in R-2 Zoning. Attachment �} GP/R/ER/TR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 215 Bridge Street Page 3 Lots 18-21: 2,500 square foot Four bedroom units, each with a 450 square foot Secondary Dwelling Unit. Lot 22: Existing single-family residence to remain within Open Space (CIOS-5) Zoning (5.06 acres). Project History At the September 10`h Planning Commission hearing the project was conceptually reviewed without the intent of taking formal action. Public testimony was gathered and the Commission offered conceptual direction to staff and the applicant. Public testimony primarily focused on a potential "loss of open space" and concerns about integrating affordable housing into the neighborhood. Other concerns were expressed, such as the fear of the future development being utilized as student housing and the potential for drainage impacts on the new housing units and adjacent properties. The owners of the adjacent historic manufacturing building (formerly Bailey Bridge Co.) were concerned about placing housing units too close to land designated as Manufacturing. From the Commission's discussion on the project, staff interpreted the following action items for the applicant to pursue following the hearing: 1. Clarify sustainable components of the housing project and identify the details of how these amenities will be implemented. 2. Clarify the square footage of the area proposed to be modified from Open Space to Medium Density Residential as identified on the General Plan Map. 3. Identify the proposed change to the development limit line as it pertains to existing residential development within the adjacent neighborhood. 4. Clarify the layout and proposed residential or commercial component of the units closest to Bridge Street and address compatibility with Manufacturing. 5. Clarify the boundary of the flood zone, potential flood hazards, and proposed design of the structures in this vicinity to address the depth of flooding and impeding flows. 6. Clarify how drainage will be accommodated from the small drainage swale at the rear of the site that currently handles natural drainage from a portion of the hillside. T. Discuss benefits of the project to be offered to the City in exchange for any loss of open space or the adjustment of the Development Limit Line (ie: affordable housing, increased energy efficiency, preservation or enhancement of a natural site feature, open space easement(private or public). 8. Provide details of proposed trail linkage to City Open Space. The applicant has now prepared a written response to each of these items as well as providing additional research on the site's hydrology. The written response (attachment 2) includes significant project details and is an important component for the Planning Commission to review prior to considering the applicant's request. �" 0 Attachment 4 GP/R/ER/TR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 215 Bridge Street Page 4 EVALUATION The following paragraphs evaluate the merits of the proposed Rezoning, General Plan Amendment and adjustment of the development limit line. Zoning Discrepancy The current General Plan Land Use Map identifies a portion of the property as Conservation/Open Space with the lower portion of the property, at the location of the proposed development site, designated as Manufacturing. The Zoning Map, however, is inconsistent with the General Plan Map and identifies the entire property as Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-5). Staff has researched the reasoning for this discrepancy and found that it is the result of a rezone request that occurred in 1981. At that time an application to rezone the property was pursued by the property owner in order to subdivide the property and maintain the existing residences on the property as legal conforming residential units. At the time, it was determined by staff that the General Plan map would not have to be amended in order to accommodate the request to re-zone the property from M and C/OS —40 to C/OS —5. The zoning request and minor subdivision was approved, however the subdivision map along with a proposed open space easement was never recorded. Therefore, the project died, but it unfortunately resulted in the implementation of zoning map boundaries that are not consistent with the General Plan Map. Staff has speculated that the state's General Plan Guidelines in 1981 were written with enough ambiguity to allow a broader flexibility in determination of general plan and zoning boundaries.. Today's General Plan Guidelines still do not require a General Plan Map to reflect exact precision, unlike the boundaries of a property line, which require precise coordinates. "The Attorney General has observed that "...when the Legislature has used the term 'map,'it has required preciseness, exact location, and detailed boundaries...."as in the case of the Subdivision Map Act. No such precision is required of a general plan diagram (67 CaL Ops.Atty.Gen. 75,77)". In summary, the General Plan Map identifies the lower and more level portions of the subject property as a manufacturing designation, while the hillside is identified as Open Space. A close review of the General Plan map has revealed that the map boundaries are not contiguous with one contour line; they are instead drawn as a somewhat arbitrary line. Upon a review of the site, one can clearly identify the intent of the General Plan. There is an obvious natural boundary between a generally flat area and a steeply-sloping hillside. The intent of the General Plan was to allow development (Manufacturing) on the level area while preserving the hillside. The Bridge Street project does not propose any residential construction within the hillside, therefore it can be determined that the actual General Plan Amendment Request is not a request to amend the General Plan from Open Space to Medium Density Residential, however it is a request to amend the General Plan from Manufacturing to Medium Density Residential. Attachment GP/R/ER/IR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 215 Bridge Street Page 5 Hillside Planning and Development Limit Line The General Plan Hillside Planning Map establishes the development limit line at the 175-foot contour for this property. Criteria for locating the development limit line include water service elevation, steepness of slope, access, slope stability, fire hazard, sensitive plant communities, and visual impacts. In this area, the 175- foot elevation lies within a fairly level area at the base of the hillside. Heading eastward the 175- foot contour runs through the existing neighborhood and eventually into Meadow Park. Staff believes that the 175- foot development limit line has been establishes somewhat of an arbitrary boundary at this location, and an adjustment of the boundary up to 185-feet would have no impact on aesthetics, slope stability, fire access or sensitive plant communities on this property. The 185-foot contour more appropriately follows the edge of this property as it transitions from level to hillside. Furthermore, the adjustment of the development limit line at this location does not set precedence nor is it inconsistent with adjacent development. As shown in the exhibit below, the adjacent neighborhood around Exposition Drive is already developed up to and above the 200-foot elevation contour. These houses were developed in the mid 1980's. Allowing a minor adjustment of the development limit line at this site (175 to 185) to accommodate an R-2 development does not set a precedent within the neighborhood. It simply allows the full use of an existing level area on this property and moves the boundary to a reasonable location instead of an arbitrary location. The Utilities Department has analyzed the proposed amendment and has verified that water pressure is adequate to serve the proposed project as it currently serves the existing house at this -r The exhibit at right identifies the proposed project site and 3E relevant elevation contours e of the hillside. Note that the existing hillside development limit line is at the 175-foot IDA contour and proposed is at v the 185-foot contour. The 177.1 map identifies the 177.1-foot w contour and the 183.7- foot 183 _ contour since the City Map is h translated from a metric contour map. Also note that C/OS-5 the 183.7-foot contour is C/OS-40-SP 223 v irrelevant to the existing :J pattern of development. 4 , ac- i Attachment y GP/R/ER/TR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 215 Bridge Street Page 6 site at the 275-foot contour. The Fire department has reviewed the proposed access plan and agrees that access will be adequate as proposed. Staff has visited the site with the Natural Resources Manager and it appears that no sensitive plan species or serpentine rock formations would be disturbed with the proposed development. The proposed development does not require any grading into the hillside or encroachment into slope; instead it will propose residential structures near the bottom of the slope. As proposed, the adjustment of the development limit line appears to be justified. The change does not raise any substantial issues of consistency with text policies as found within the Land Use Element and the Open Space Element. Subdivision and Planned Development Under the Zoning designation of a Planned Development, a residential subdivision may be developed with lot sizes of any size or shape. Property development standards are also governed by the Planned Development and are not regulated. by the standards of the underlying zoning district. Approval of a Planned Development requires the applicant to submit a comprehensive set of plans as outlined within Chapter 17.62 of the Zoning Ordinance (see attachment 8). The applicant submitted a revised Tentative Tract Map for the proposed 22-lot subdivision on October 8`t'. The map contains the information necessary to consider approval of a preliminary development plan. In order to approve a Planned Development rezoning, the review authority must find that the project incorporates at least 2 of the following 4 features: 1. A minimum of 2.5 percent of the residential units within the project are affordable households of very low, low or moderate income; 2. The project will achieve a minimum of 30 percent greater energy efficiency than minimum required by California Code of Regulations Title 24; 3. The project will preserve, enhance, and/or create a significant natural feature with minimum area of one-half acre; or 4. The project will provide a substantial public amenity, for example, a significant public plaza, a public park, or a similar improved open space feature, including provisions for guaranteed long- term maintenance not at the expense of the City. In this case the proposed project appears to meet all 4 of the above features. ✓ It supplies at least 50% of the units as affordable units and; ✓ it achieves greater energy efficiency due to proposed wall construction and solar orientation and; ✓ it proposes to preserve and enhance the rock features and hillside features above the project site and; ✓ It proposes a public amenity in the form of an access trail linking the site with City open space. In addition to providing at least 2 of the necessary features of a planned development, the project meets the required findings of a planned development as described in Chapter 17.62.045 and as further outlined in the draft resolution of approval. As part of the conditions of approval of the subdivision and request to rezone the property a developer's agreement that outlines the details 4-3S � Attachment �} GP/R/ERITR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 215 Bridge Street Page 7 of the project shall be required. The proposed subdivision map, development plan, affordable housing agreement and sustainable construction concepts shall be required components of the project as a condition of approval of the request to amend the general plan and rezone the property to allow a medium density residential subdivision. Land Use and Neighborhood compatibility In consideration of the site's location, it's _ adjacency to land designated as Open Space, a creek, and adjacency to existing uLL IJ1ll R-2 residential, a change to allow a less intensive designation of the property and f the development of a sustainable housing 9 1 project with a significant affordability 's component is a more reasonable use than the present Manufacturing designation. Bridge Street itself is predominantly a Commercial Service and Manufacturing use district, however it is surrounded by medium and high-density residential. This area is a "pocket" of commercial open apm land uses that is sandwiched between The General Plan map shows how this vicinity is a pocket of open space on the south street hills and a Commercial land uses surrounded by existing residential predominantly residential neighborhood. districts. The new Medium Density Residential designation would be an extension of Medium Density already existing along Exposition Drive while acting as an intermediate use between the Commercial district and hillside Open Space. In order to address the compatibility between the existing manufacturing use and proposed dwelling units, staff has suggested that the property north of the creek, nearest the manufacturing use remain under a Manufacturing designation. It is not the goal of the applicant to construct a commercial component as part of this project. The applicants desire is to construct an affordable and sustainable housing project without a commercial component, however in order to reduce the potential for land use conflicts, the applicant has agreed to staff s recommendation. If the property for proposed units 1 through 4 were to be left under a manufacturing designation it would still allow for a small residential unit in combination with a commercial use under the designation of a Work Live Unit. Work Live Units are a fairly new concept allowed with recent Zoning Regulations effective July 2003. Zoning Ordinance Section 17.08.120 describes the function, design and operating requirements of these units. As defined in the Ordinance: "A work/live unit is intended to function predominantly as work space with incidental residential accommodations that meet basic habitability requirements." These units are limited to a minimum floor area of 1,000 square "'f " 3`f Attachment �} GP/R/ER/rR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 215 Bridge Street Page 8 feet and a maximum of 30% of the floor area may be utilized as living space. Additional requirements, such a disclosure to tenants of a work/live unit that they may be exposed to noise, dust, fumes or other nuisances associated with commercial businesses, are also a part of the operating standards found in Section 17.08.120 (see attachment 5). Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires residential development projects of 5 units or more to provide at least 5% of the units as moderately affordable units or pay an in lieu fee equal to 5% of the housing valuation. In this case the applicant is proposing to construct at least 50% of the units to meet the guidelines for moderately affordable housing. The applicant has drafted an affordable housing agreement that has been included as attachment 3. Projects that dedicate at least 25% of the units as affordable housing are eligible for incentives such as a density bonus, fee-waivers, fee reductions or other incentives that the City deems appropriate. Due to recent changes in State law, some of the City's incentives such as fee waivers may no longer be a viable resource. State law (Assembly Bill 975, October 2001) now requires housing to be constructed utilizing prevailing wage if a public agency grants monetary incentives or contributions to the applicant in exchange for affordable housing. The additional cost of utilizing prevailing wage construction for this particular project outweighs incentives such as fee waivers or other fee reductions for affordable housing. Community Design Guidelines Prior to approval of the project design and the design of the dwelling units, the Architectural Review Commission must review the project. If the Planning Commission, and ultimately the City Council, approves the project it will be referred to the ARC for a review of the project design. The proposal calls for a Planned Development, which would allow interior lot setbacks and lot sizes to be governed by a unique set of Planned Development standards that would allow the site to be configured in order to preserve the maximum amount of open space, while / clustering the residential units and taking / advantage of solar orientation and views. r � Consistent with the Community Design J �._• Guidelines, the units will be designed tomaximize energy energy and resource conservation. If the project proposal receives favorable direction from the Planning Commission, the i house designs will be refined and details will be presented to the Architectural Review Commission for a review of consistency with Conceptual 2-story residence the Community Design Guidelines. Attachment �} GP/R/ERlrR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 215 Bridge Street Page 9 General Plan Consistency A number of General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element policies support development of this nature. Most importantly this is a project that proposes a high percentage of affordable housing units that will be built with sustainable, energy conserving features. The project is consistent with the Housing Element goal of providing a variety in the location, type, size, tenure, cost, style, and age of dwellings to accommodate the wide range of households desiring to live in the City. In opposition to the proposed General Plan Amendment it could be argued that the new development may conflict with the existing Manufacturing Zone. In reality, however, the primary housing area is buffered from the manufacturing zone by a creek, trees, and natural topography. Proposed units nearest manufacturing will be Work/Live units. The following General Plan and Housing Element policies pertain to the project: Land Use Element: LU 6.2.0:Hillsides As discussed in the open space section, San Luis Obispo wants to keep open its steeper, higher, and most visible hillsides. Some of the lower and less steep hillside areas, however, are seen as suitable for development, particularly where development is coupled with permanent open space Protection of the more sensitive areas. The proposed development is within a lower, fairly level area below the scenic resources and sensitive slope areas. LU 6.2.1:Development Limits Hillsides planning areas should have carefully chosen development limit lines, and special design standards for the areas that can be developed. The location of the development limit and the standards should cause development to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Open Space Element, and public health and safety problems related to utility service, access, wildland fire hazard, erosion, flooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards. Also, the development limit line and the standards should help protect the City's scenic setting. The proposed shift of the development limit line is consistent with this policy and would only allow the development to occur outside of the sensitive hillside area. LU 2.2.2: Separation and Buffering Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing businesses, traffic arteries, the freeway, and the railroad. Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities. The primary housing area appears to have adequate buffering from commercial and industrial activities and is sited on land that does not appear to be suited for further commercial expansion. Housing Element: H 5.1.1: Variety Attachment GP/R/ERITR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 215 Bridge Street Page 10 Provide variety in the location, type, size, tenure, cost, style and age of dwellings to accommodate the wide range of households desiring to live within the City. The project provides a wide variety of units and proposes at least half of these units to be within the affordable range. H 9.1.1: Energy and Water Conservation Produce housing that is economical to occupy because it incorporates energy-saving and water- saving features. The proposed design plan proposes a number of energy efficient features that conserve both electricity and water. H 9.2.1:Energy Efficient Design In order to promote energy conservation and a clean environment, the City will encourage development of dwellings with energy efficient design, utilizing passive and active solar features, and the use of energy saving techniques that exceed the minimums prescribed by State law. Houses will be sited and designed to maximize solar efficiency. H 2.3.5: Lower Cost/Energy Efficient Construction The City will review its building and planning regulations to find ways to allow construction by owner-builders of personalized, unconventional housing types that reduce cost and/or energy and materials consumption, provided that residential quality and safety can be maintained. H 2.2.3: Creation and Preservation -Affordable Rental Housing The City will preserve and expand its supply of affordable rental housing. Parking,Transportation and Access Development Review and Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed development. The Transportation Division finds that the project will create less than significant impacts to area circulation. The site provides individual covered parking spaces for each of the units in addition to 5 visitor parking spaces adjacent to the access road within a common area. The proposed Tract map summarizes the parking configuration and the number of required spaces. The number of units requires 48 parking spaces and 5 guest spaces for a total of 53 parking spaces. The site plan provides 54 parking spaces, 8 of which are proposed to be in tandem with other parking spaces. Bicycle parking will be provided in the form of bicycle benches. Bicycle benches are metal pedestrian benches that can be utilized for seating and for securing bicycles. The metal slats in the benches are wide spaced so as to allow a bicycle tire to be secured within the bench. Primary access to the site will be from a 20 foot wide access road that will constructed in place of the existing driveway that currently serves the 2 residences from Bridge Street. A new bridge will be constructed to span the creekway. It has not yet been determined whether the new access road will be a public street or a private drive. This determination will regulate the type of Attachment �} GP/R/ER/fR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 215 Bridge Street Page I I improvements that must occur on the road including road width, curb, gutter and sidewalk and street lighting. In addition to vehicular access, a pedestrian pathway with a decomposed granite surface is proposed as a linkage from the interior of this site through to the existing City Open space trail that begins on Exposition Drive. A portion of this trail can be seen on the project plans, and an additional exhibit will be provided at the Planning Commission hearing. Environmental Review An initial study of environmental review has been drafted for the proposed project and the applicant has agreed to a list of proposed mitigation measures. The existing creek channel and the property immediately adjacent to it is considered a floodplain and is identified on City flood hazard maps. The project would be designed to accommodate the floodway, and a hydrology study has been completed to support the - project as proposed. An archaeologist was retained to perform a _. phase 1 surface site analysis in order to determine if additional sub-surface archeological studies will be necessary. In summary, the report concluded that the site is s not a significant cultural site and does not warrant further study. The archeologist, however did note the age of the existing _ residence on the site as a 1920's era California Bungalow. This residence does not exist on City historic records, however, and staff will perform additional research on the property in order to determine if the residence will be subject to review by the Existing 1920's era Residence on site Cultural Heritage Committee. The residence is not proposed to remain as part of the planned development. Staff has visited the site with the City's Natural Resource Manager in order to determine the presence of sensitive species or habitats. A portion of the site is within area containing serpentine rock. The serpentine rock areas of the South Street Hills are known to contain sensitive plant species. The proposed project, however, does not significantly encroach into areas of serpentine rock, and existing significant serpentine rock outcroppings on the hillside will remain intact. The Natural Resources Manager agrees with the proposed creek setback and agrees that the project will not impact any known sensitive habitats creek or hillside habitats. No sensitive animal or plant species were found and no other natural resource issues were confirmed on site. Attachment �} GP/R/ERlrR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 215 Bridge Street Page 12 OTHER DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS Public Works: The Public Works Department will require a detailed hydrology study along with proposed improvement plans for the subdivision. Additionally, the Public Works department may require complete public improvements to the access road, which would include curb gutter, sidewalk, street lights and paving to meet City standards. Airport Land Use Commission: The proposed development portion of the property is outside of Zone 6 of the SLO County ALUP. The proposed open space on the hillside is within the northern boundary of Zone 6. Attached: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Applicant's project description and response to conceptual review 3. Draft Inclusionary Housing Proposal 4. Existing General Plan Land Use Element map 5. Existing Zoning Map 6. Proposed Zoning Map 7. Initial Study of Environmental Review 8. Work/Live units, Zoning Ordinance Section 17.08.120 9. Chapter 17.62 of the Zoning Ordinance 10. Letter from Larry Santoyo, Earthflow Design Works in support of on-site drainage features 11. Letters from adjacent property owners and tenants 12. Letter from Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club 13. Draft resolution recommending approval of the project Full-scale project plans will be distributed to the Planning Commission, a copy of which will be available at the Community Development Department Attachment �} RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 215 BRIDGE STREET TR/ER/GP/R 64-03 (Tract 2560) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street; San Luis Obispo, California, on November 5`° 2003, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R 64-03, a 22 lot Planned Development subdivision and request to amend the Hillside Development Limit Line, Amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public heating 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 hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE If 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 in support of the project approval that includes adjustment of the adjustment of the hillside development limit line from the 175-foot contour up to the 185-foot contour, amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Manufacturing to Medium Density Residential, amending the Zoning Map from Conservation/Open Space 5 to Conservation/Open Space 5 and Medium Density Residential (C/OS-5, R-2) and approving a 22 lot Planned Development Subdivision: A. Development Limit Line adjustment findings 1. The amended development limit line location is consistent with hillside planning text policies that are designed to protect scenic vistas and allow adequate distribution of public services such as water sewer and fire protection. 2. The amended location places the hillside development limit line in a reasonable location instead of its present arbitrary location by placing the limit line at the base of the hillside at a point on the property that changes from gently sloping to steep hillside. 3. The new development limit line allows for the property to be developed consistent with "C ' �v Attachment I the adjacent neighborhood and allows for the preservation of sensitive hillside areas. B. General Plan Map findings 1.. Amendment of the General Plan Map from Manufacturing to Medium Density Residential is consistent with the General Plan text policies that encourage the preservation and expansion of existing residential neighborhoods. 2. The size, shape and location of the property is not conducive to a manufacturing land use since the property is separated from other manufacturing areas by a creek and the site is too close to sensitive hillsides and an existing residential neighborhood. 3. A medium density residential land use designation is appropriate for this site since it allows a transition between the existing manufacturing designation and hillside open space. 4. A medium density residential land use is appropriate for the site and consistent with the adjacent land use pattern at adjacent properties on Exposition Drive. 5. Allowing the land use amendment will implement the City's Housing Element Policies that encourage affordable housing projects. C. Subdivision Map findings 2. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Map for Medium density Residential because each dwelling has access to a satisfactory private open space area and the development would occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the medium high density residential zone. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under- developed site that is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way and it is close to the public transit and associated services. 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is adjacent to an existing residential developed site adjacent to existing roadways and additional residential dwellings, services are available to serve the development, and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site contains provisions to preserve and protect the creek, the hillside or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish or wildlife. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the type of irnprovements are residential and development is a similar scale to existing development already functioning at the site. Additionally, new construction will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist. 8. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies and evaluates Attachment LV the potential impacts associated with this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. D. Planned Development Findings 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the proposed land use is allowed within the applicable primary zoning district if the General Plan Map and Zoning Map is amended as proposed; 2. The project complies with all applicable provisions of these Zoning Regulations other than those modified by the PD rezoning; 3. The approved modifications to the development standards of these Zoning Regulations are necessary and appropriate to accommodate the superior design of the proposed project, its compatibility with adjacent land uses, and its successful mitigation of environmental impacts and its proposed affordable housing features ,and sustainable building concepts; 4. The project complies with all applicable City Design Guidelines and will be reviewed by the City's Architectural Review Commission for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines prior to approval; 5. All affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project; 6. The location, size, site planning, building design features, and operating characteristics of the project are highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood, and will be compatible with the character of the site, and the land uses and development intended for the surrounding neighborhood by the General Plan; 7. The site is adequate for the project in terms of size, configuration topography, and other applicable features, and has appropriate access to public streets with adequate capacity to accommodate the quantity and type of traffic expected to be generated by the use; and 8. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project will not, in the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. Aesthetics 1. New construction above the 175th contour shall be limited to a 25-foot maximum height limit. 2. Existing willow trees and blackberry brambles at the north boundary of the site shall remain in place and be protected during all phases of site construction. Other trees shall remain on site unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department and the City Arborist for removal. 3. If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare shall be required. Z4 - 4 C�- Attachment Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a required setbacks and site dimensions. Compliance with the site plan shall be verified through construction plan check and site review. A lighting photometric plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department as part of the construction plan check. An examination of installed lighting will be analyzed prior to occupancy of the site. A final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the construction plan check. Installed landscape will be reviewed prior to occupancy release. Air Quality The following mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution associated with grading and construction of the site. These mitigation measures are required at the start and maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: 4. Unless otherwise approved, an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District for review and approval prior to the start of any construction or grading activity. The plan, if required shall be implemented during all phases of earthwork at the site. 5. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; 6. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; 7. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; 8. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; 9. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and 10. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24) hours. Monitoring Program: An asbestos dust mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Air Quality District prior to issuance of a construction permit. City staff shall ensure compliance with standards through site inspections. Biological Resources 11. All construction activities including grading, vegetation removal, stockpiling, equipment storage etc. shall remain outside of the 20-foot creek setback line at all times. The creek setback line shall be established by the City's Natural Resource Manager and marked in the field. The setback area shall be fenced with orange construction fencing at all times, and shall be in place prior to beginning of construction. 12. Replacement of the bridge and associate improvements crossing the creek shall require permits from the Department of Fish and Game and review and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board unless otherwise exempted from such review. - Attachment Monitoring Program: Prior to release of City construction permits, the riparian areas shall be inspected for fencing and erosion control protection. A separate permit shall be secured by the Department of Fish and Game and other applicable agencies prior to issuance of a City construction permit that allows work within or over the creek area. Cultural Resources 13. During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. 14. Prior to removing or demolishing the existing residence at the property, all provisions of the City's Building Demolition and Relocation codes shall be utilized. This may include a 90-day notice advertised in a local newspaper offering the existing residence for re- location. Monitoring Program: Ongoing field inspections by City staff and construction staff awareness shall ensure compliance with the mitigation measures. The project shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Demolition Ordinance for the demolition or relocation of the existing residence upon submittal of construction permit applications. Hydrology and Water Quality 15. All site drainage shall be directed towards the public right of way or on site private drainage systems unless other provisions are approved by the City. 16.Where feasible, driveways, parking areas or private streets shall be constructed of pervious materials such as turf block with the intention of increases on-site water percolation. 17. Structures on sites 1-8 shall be designed so as not to impede floodwaters through the use of open carports or other design features that will not block potential floodwaters. Monitoring Program: Construction plans, including a grading and drainage plan,.shall reflect direction of drainage and identify any proposed detention or retention. Pervious paving materials (where used) shall be shown on the construction plans. Drainage systems and applicable installations shall be incorporated into the site prior to final inspection. Noise 18. A noise disclosure shall be recorded on the deeds for lots 1-4. The noise disclosure shall inform future tenants of lots 1-4 of the adjacent manufacturing uses and potential noise exposure. 19. Where possible considering the existing flood plain, a six-foot tall masonry wall shall be constructed at the west property line between manufacturing uses west of the subject 4e. 4LA Attachment N property. The wall shall be designed as to not inhibit potential flood flows while helping to reduce noise impacts to units. Monitoring Program: A noise disclosure shall be recorded on the deeds of subject properties, along with the Final Subdivision Map, prior to final inspection of the construction. Plans for sound attenuation, including a wall (if feasible) shall be provided on the final construction drawings. All such improvements shall be completed prior to final inspection. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application ER MGP/R 64-03, subject to the following conditions and code requirements. 1. Prior to final approval of the General Plan and Zoning Map amendments and subdivision of the property the applicant shall submit a detailed development agreement that confirms the design of the project as reviewed by Community Development Staff with the application concept. The agreement shall outline the sustainable components of the project, the design and placement of the buildings and associated improvements. 2. Within 6 months of City Council approval the applicant shall prepare and submit a final development plan to the Community Development Director consistent with Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.62.060. 3. An affordable housing agreement consistent with the approved affordable housing proposal shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to proceeding to the Architectural Review Commission, following approval of the applicable entitlements by the City Council. 4. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the project design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 5. At least 25% of the common driveway and private outdoor driveway areas shall be designed with pervious surfaces such as pavers or turf block. 6. A common address sign shall be placed at the driveway intersection with Bridge Street. Address sign shall list all unit addresses and shall be reviewed with architectural plans for consistency with the proposed subdivision and the existing neighborhood. 7. The subdivider shall dedicate a public easement to allow pedestrian access through the site to a pathway that links to City Open Space property. 8. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement for all property above the 185-foot contour, within lots 1 through 21 to preserve the property as private open space. The easement shall be written to prohibit grading, construction and land disturbance other than pedestrian pathways or native landscape. Erosion control devices may be allowed within the open space easement. 4' `i'� Attachment 9. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 10. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 11. The demolition of the existing residence shall be subject to the City's demolition and building relocation code and may be subject to a 90-day newspaper advertisement prior to demolition or removal. Public Right-of-way 12. Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications (curbs, gutters & 2m sidewalks, full width street pavement, signing, striping, barricades, street lights,etc.). 13. A public improvement plan,prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval. All grades, layout, staking and cut-sheets necessary for the construction of street paving and frontage improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. 14. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the Bridge Street frontage. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 15. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the Bridge Street frontage. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 16. All proposed private streets shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and pavement design shall be based on a Traffic Index of 6.5. 17. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing,wiring, lumenaires,etc.)per City standards. Water,Sewer& Utilities 18. The proposed on-site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 19. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 4-41-o Attachment �} 20. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement for a public water system over all private streets or driveways, parking areas (including planters and raised medians) and common areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 21. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. 22. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. Utilities to new residences shall be underground. 23. The subdivider shall provide individual electrical, phone, television, natural gas, water service, and sewer connections to the approval of the affected utility companies and the Public Works Director. Grading & Drainage 24. The applicant shall provide a complete hydrologic/hydraulic analysis as part of the final development plan that identifies the size requirements of the proposed detention basin. The runoff from the site post development shall not exceed that of predevelopment for the 2, 10, 100 year 24hour storm. Analysis and design of stormwater facilities shall be consistent with the City's Draft Watershed Management Plan. 25. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties will be required. The scope of the study must include analysis of all existing public and" private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of disposal. Detention facilities may be required. All proposed detention basin and drainage improvements, except those within a public street, shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and homeowners' association. Any lots or building pads, identified in the hydrology study to be subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be constructed to conform with the City's flood damage prevention regulations. 26. All bridging, culverting and modifications to the existing creek channels must be in compliance with city standards and policies, the City's Flood Management Policy Book (specifically regarding clear spanning of creeks, etc.) and be approved by the Public Works Director, Army.Corp of Engineers, and Fish&Game. 27. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, the City's Natural Resources Manager and the Dept. of Fish&Game. 28. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 29. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing; grading and excavation results in land disturbance of one or more acre. Permits are required until the construction is Attachment `V complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Resources Control Board. 30. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the SWRCB shall be included in the PIP set. Mapping Requirements - The tentative map shall show topo for the entire subdivision and shall be produced on an 18"x 26"sheet. 31. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor in accordance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act, the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision City's Regulations. 32. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991:35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" - meters) for direct import into the Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier (model space in real world coordinates, NAD 83 - m). If you have any questions regarding format,please call prior to submitting electronic data. 33. The final map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 34. Electronic files and stamped and signed drawings shall be submitted for all public improvement plans prior to map recordation or commencing with improvements,whichever occurs first. Submittal documents shall include the AutoCAD compatible drawing files and any associated plot files along with one original, stamped and signed, ink on mylar set of plans. 35. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans and record drawings, compatible with AutoCAD for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, in accordance with the City's Engineering Standards, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 36. The map shall be recorded prior to occupancy of any of the units. Otherwise, the map shall be processed as a condo conversion per Municipal Code Chapter 17.82. Utilities 37. It is necessary to be certain that all City facilities fall within proposed easements or property deeded to the City. The on-site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The water system shall be public with the water meters 4 4q Attachment manifolded in groups, as much as possible. The City's minimum water main size is 8". A larger main may be needed in order to provide the necessary fire flows. 38. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a per residential basis. 39. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well or other non-potable water systems, including gray-water. All backflow preventers shall be approved by the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research. The project shall be coordinated with the County Cross-Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. 40. 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. 41.The irrigation systems for common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. Street Trees 42. Removal of(1) one pine tree approved with the replanting of several unique and common landscape trees per. proposed landscape plan. All other existing trees to remain with a tree protection plan developed for creek and native trees to the satisfaction of the city arborist. One street tree required per 35 lineal feet of street frontage or any part thereof. 43. Street tree selection may need to be revised considering available space and planted to city standards. Natural Resources Manager 44. Slopes consist of serpentine rocks, likely to contain rare or threatened plant species. Rock outcrop on south side of project should be protected, and encroachments onto hillside should be kept to a minimum. 45. Drainage on north side of access to the existing house on the hillside is not a creek but is good quality wildlife habitat. Plan apparently calls for protecting this feature. Natural Resources staff supports such protection. Transportation 4-0 Attachment 4 46. The final development plan shall provide a plan showing locations and dimensions of on site parking also noting covered vs. uncovered. 47. The final development plan shall provide a plan explaining the EV proposal. Will there be joint use of communal EV's or will the EV parking spaces possibly not be used? 48. The final development plan shall describe and detail the bike bench concept. On motion by , seconded by and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2002. Ronald Whisenand, Secretary Planning Commission Z+-� Attachment 5 Draft Inclusionary Housing Proposal And Affordable Housing Agreement Between The City of San Luis Obispo And The Bridge Street Group, A Non-Profit Housing Corporation Regarding GPA / Rezone / TTM / PUD 64-03 The Bridge Street Neighborhood Project This Inclusionary Housing Proposal and Affordable Housing Agreement, prepared on the 24th of October, 2003, is between the City of San Luis Obispo (hereby referred to as "City"), and the Bridge Street Group, a non-profit housing corporation (hereby referred to as "Applicant"). The purpose of this proposal is to outline and document the intentions of the applicant, with regards to entitlement and construction of an affordable housing project, known as the Bridge Street Neighborhood Project(hereby referred to as "Project'), to be located at 215 Bridge Street, in the city of San Luis Obispo, California. Whereas the Applicant has filed entitlement applications for a General Plan Update, Rezone, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Planned Unit Development, which would allow construction of 21 new single-family housing units, on 22 new individual lots, on an existing 7.73 acre parcel within city limits. And whereas the City requires any new development to demonstrate method and provision for inclusionary and affordable housing units, And whereas the Applicant desires to provide to the City an affordable housing project that exceeds the minimum city requirements for inclusionary housing units. Therefore, the Applicant proposes, acknowledges and hereby agrees to the following: 1. This Project proposes to meet the (minimum) 5% affordable housing required via physical construction and subsequent sale of affordable units per this PUD project, 2. As designed, the Applicant intends to sell up to 50% of the total units built under the moderate-income category, as stated in the affordable housing guidelines. 3. As designed, the lots and units currently slated for sale under the moderate- . affordable category include lots/units 1 through 12. These units range in sized from 450 s.f. studio units up to 1,800 s.f. three-bedroom single-family homes. 4. The Project, as proposed, will exceed the city's minimum requirements for affordable housing units required for this type and size of new development. 5. The Project, as proposed, will meet or exceed all city zoning and development. standards for a residential Planned Unit Development. Attachment 5 6. For those units built and sold under the moderate affordable category, the Applicant seeks to pursue planning, building, and development fee waivers for all affordable units constructed in this Project. However, it is our understanding that certain restrictions and conditions may apply to the acceptance of these fee waivers, which may increase the cost of construction of these units, and thus reduce the applicants ability to sell these units at affordable rates. Hence, the Applicant desires to work with city staff to investigate the validity of these restrictions and/or explore all available options to ensure maximum affordability in terms of unit count. 7. In lieu of, or in addition to, possible fee waiver incentives, the Applicant may desire to seek alternative city incentives, including but not limited to: a. City installed public improvements b. City-subsidized insurance premiums (work/live units) c. Other alternative incentives as yet to be defined 8. Those lots/units designated and sold as affordable by the Applicant shall be deed restricted in temps of their inclusion in this affordable housing program. 9. Those lots/units sold under the affordable guidelines will be held as affordable units for a term of not less than 30 years. 10. Those lotstunits initially sold under the affordable guidelines will be required to be owner-occupied, with restrictions detailed in the Project CC&R's. 11. Lots/units initially sold under the affordable guidelines may be re-sold by the initial buyer under "shared-equity" program, in which the buyer receives a portion of the equity increase realized between the original selling price and the new affordable sales price, as set at the time of re-sale. This condition shall apply to all subsequent sellers of affordable units through the term of affordability as stated in item 9 above. Upon its execution, this agreement shall inure to and be binding upon the City and Applicant and their heirs, successors and assigns to all real property created through vesting entitlements for this Project. Entered into this day of , 2004, in the city of San Luis Obispo, California. City of San Luis Obispo Bridge Street Group, Inc. City Attorney Date Applicant Date 77 3 t 4:: Attachment 77 1 lY /T jj ^—�--' _ '_• 1 -e "*3o_"e�.�y'RVFr��..'¢A''.ek- �_KC'L�b'm` .—'�'�n�y„'"f'b�SF^._ a� � � – T. iil( n yF1 {. DOW '^�. a Ljj O 5� ' '=�' "•+ ] � 0. e a ` vim? alS' �, V C' F GR Q Xaa - - r� n vy Open Space conservation;/ Open Space " v . p City Open Space open space f EX IST1 r11P 8, "8 p�SMh +S3 till �`' f �My IN An c i• LAN ��� '-�.•� i � . p` �e�l� - . � ,�_� .� •' rte; �- i1 MIT MEL lox" AYSS V��MrfX3J.. 3 i - '4.Sr jet In NConservation Open Space Y yr,l tea•' :'. .:1.hr / / � •' • . h I k4 s "`NI claim: ES ^-F A'11• AI al�vi a�; .. - `9 j.\ S`:'• l.API /s, ���9 r �µc moo' ga paaO dal .A d. 1-t3,•� � ,"rt w ✓-.:' ''9. .l�+fit L:- >,.Q"%'�.' �r. c �\''' Y: t81AA•Pl ����..r � moi+"' t ® :fi� ���.o' l�g���'•' ren' Ira " • �.r 4 �`. 's f, �" � I t '�,-i,-.zi fGp �Qo i�AjrS AZ . . ��alio69. 4 �6io _ _ Mi1i�®, r G� �1•.:Itjii�i..1a ARM e o . - . . i e �• 1. .. -- _ Attachment 8 RESOLUTION NO. -03 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING AND OPEN SPACE TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE AND ADJUSTING THE DEVELOPMENT LIMIT LINE TO THE 185 FOOT CONTOUR FOR PROPERTY AT 215 BRIDGE STREET GP/R/ER 64-03 T WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 5, 2003 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/ER 64-03, Bridge Street Corporation, applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 2, 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; BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 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 Commission. 2. The amended development limit line location from the 175 to 185 foot contour is consistent with hillside planning text policies that are designed to protect scenic vistas and allow adequate distribution of public services such as water sewer and fire protection. 3. The amended location places the hillside development limit line in a reasonable location instead of its present arbitrary location by placing the limit line at the base of the hillside at a point on the property that changes from gently sloping to steep hillside. 4. The new development limit line allows for the property to be developed consistent with the adjacent neighborhood and allows for the preservation of sensitive hillside areas. 5. Amendment of the General Plan Map from Manufacturing to Medium Density Residential is consistent with the General Plan text policies that encourage the preservation and expansion of existing residential neighborhoods. Resolution No. XXXX-03 _ Attachment 8 Page 2 6. The size, shape and location of the property is not conducive to a manufacturing land use since the property is separated from other manufacturing areas by a creek and the site is too close to sensitive hillsides and an existing residential neighborhood. 7. A medium density residential land use designation is appropriate for this site since it allows a transition between the existing manufacturing designation and hillside open space. 8. A medium density residential land use is appropriate for the site and consistent with the adjacent land use pattern at adjacent properties on Exposition Drive. 9. Allowing the land use amendment will implement the City's Housing Element Policies that encourage affordable housing projects. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council does hereby adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. 1. New construction above the 175th contour shall be limited to a 25-foot maximum height limit. 2. Existing willow trees and blackberry brambles at the north boundary of the site shall remain in place and be protected during all phases of site construction. Other trees shall remain on site unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department and the City Arborist for removal. 3. If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare shall be required. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a required setbacks and site dimensions. Compliance with the site plan shall be verified through construction plan check and site review. A lighting photometric plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department as part of the construction plan check. An examination of installed lighting will be analyzed prior to occupancy of the site. A final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the construction plan check. Installed landscape will be reviewed prior to occupancy release. 4. Unless otherwise approved, an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District for review and approval prior to the start of any construction or grading activity. The plan, if required shall be implemented during all phases of earthwork at the site. 5. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; 6. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; 7. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; 8. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; 4-9n Resolution No. XXXX-03 Attachment 8 Page 3 9. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and 10. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a NEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24) hours. Monitoring Program: An asbestos dust mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Air Quality District prior to issuance of a construction permit. City staff shall ensure compliance with standards through site inspections. 11.All construction activities including grading, vegetation removal, stockpiling, equipment storage etc. shall remain outside of the 20-foot creek setback line at all times. The creek setback line shall be established by the City's Natural Resource Manager and marked in the field. The setback area shall be fenced with orange construction fencing at all times, and shall be in place prior to beginning of construction. 12.Replacement of the bridge and associate improvements crossing the creek shall require permits from the Department of Fish and Game and review and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board unless otherwise exempted from such review. Monitoring Program: Prior to release of City construction permits, the riparian areas shall be inspected for fencing and erosion control protection. A separate permit shall be secured by the Department of Fish and Game and other applicable agencies prior to issuance of a City construction permit that allows work within or over the creek area. 13. During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. 14.Prior to removing or demolishing the existing residence at the property, all provisions of the City's Building Demolition and Relocation codes shall be utilized. This may include a 90-day notice advertised in a local newspaper offering the existing residence for re- location. Monitoring Program: Ongoing field inspections by City staff and construction staff awareness shall ensure compliance with the mitigation measures. The project shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Demolition Ordinance for the demolition or relocation of the existing residence upon submittal of construction permit applications. 15. All site drainage shall be directed towards the public right of way or on site private drainage systems unless other provisions are approved by the City. Resolution No. XXXX-03 Attachment 8 Page 4 16.Where feasible, driveways, parking areas or private streets shall be constructed of pervious materials such as turf block with the intention of increases on-site water percolation. 17. Structures on sites 1-8 shall be designed so as not to impede floodwaters through the use of open carports or other design features that will not block potential floodwaters. Monitoring Program: Construction plans, including a grading and drainage plan, shall reflect direction of drainage and identify any proposed detention or retention. Pervious paving materials (where used) shall be shown on the construction plans. Drainage systems and applicable installations shall be incorporated into the site prior to final inspection. 18.A noise disclosure shall be recorded on the deeds for lots 1-4. The noise disclosure shall inform future tenants of lots 1-4 of the adjacent manufacturing uses and potential noise exposure. 19.Where possible considering the existing flood plain, a six-foot tall masonry wall shall be constructed at the west property line between manufacturing uses west of the subject Property. The wall shall be designed as to not inhibit potential flood flows while helping to reduce noise impacts to units. Monitoring Program: A noise disclosure shall be recorded on the deeds of subject properties, along with the Final Subdivision Map, prior to final inspection of the construction. Plans for sound attenuation, including a wall (if feasible) shall be provided on the final construction drawings. All such improvements shall be completed prior to final inspection. SECTION 3. Action. The Council hereby recommends adoption of said mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the request (GP/R/ER 64-03) for a general plan amendment and rezoning, amending the Land Use map to Medium Density Residential for all portions of the property (215 Bridge Street) below the 185 foot contour, including adjustment of the development limit line from the 175 foot contour up to 185 (as identified within Exhibit A), with incorporation of the following project conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a detailed development agreement that confirms the design of the project as reviewed by Community Development Staff with the application concept. The agreement shall outline the sustainable components of the project, the design and placement of the buildings and associated improvements. 2. The Sustainable site and building features are required features of the Planned Development, and amendments to the development features including, but not limited to a substantial change to the site plan or sustainable design features shall require an amendment to the Planned Development to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. r^ , Resolution No. XXXX-03 l Attachment 8 Page 5 3. Within 6 months of City Council approval the applicant shall prepare and submit a final development plan to the Community Development Director consistent with Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.62.060. 4. An affordable housing agreement consistent with the approved affordable housing proposal shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to proceeding to the Architectural Review Commission, following approval of the applicable entitlements by the City Council. 5. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the project design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 6. At least 25% of the common driveway and private outdoor driveway areas shall be designed with pervious surfaces such as pavers or turf block. 7. A common address sign shall be placed at the driveway intersection with Bridge Street. Address sign shall list all unit addresses and shall be reviewed with architectural plans for consistency with the proposed subdivision and the existing neighborhood. 8. The subdivider shall dedicate a public easement to allow pedestrian access through the site to a pathway that links to City Open Space property. 9. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement for all property above the 185-foot contour, within lots 1 through 21 to preserve the property as private open space. The easement shall be written to prohibit grading, construction and land disturbance other than pedestrian pathways or native landscape. Erosion control devices may be allowed within the open space easement. A similar conservation easement shall be required for the area containing the blackberry brambles below the proposed development site. 10. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 11. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 12. The demolition of the existing residence shall be subject to the City's demolition and building relocation code and may be subject to a 90-day newspaper advertisement prior to demolition or removal. Public Right-of-way 13. Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications (curbs, gutters & 2m sidewalks, full width street pavement, signing, striping, barricades, street lights,etc.). Resolution No. XXXX-03 Page 6 Attachment 8 - 14. A public improvement plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval. All grades, layout, staking and cut- sheets necessary for the construction of street paving and frontage improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. 15. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the Bridge Street frontage. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 16. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the Bridge Street frontage. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 17. All proposed private streets shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and pavement design shall be based on a Traffic Index of 6.5. 18. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing,wiring,lumenaires,etc.)per City standards. Water, Sewer& Utilities 19. The proposed on-site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 20. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 21. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement for a public water system over all private streets or driveways, parking areas (including planters and raised medians) and common areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 22. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. 23. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. Utilities to new residences shall be underground. 24. The subdivider shall provide individual electrical, phone, television, natural gas, water service, and sewer connections to the approval of the affected utility companies and the Public Works Director. Grading & Drainage 25. The applicant shall provide a complete hydrologic/hydraulic analysis as part of the final development plan that identifies the size requirements of the proposed detention basin. The runoff from the site post development shall not exceed that of predevelopment for the 2, 10, 100 year 24hour storm. Analysis and design of stormwater facilities shall be consistent with the City's Draft Watershed Management Plan. L+ to Resolution No. XXXX-03 Page 7 ^ Attachment 8 26. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties will be required. The scope of the study must include analysis of all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of disposal. Detention facilities may be required. All proposed detention basin and drainage improvements, except those within a public street, shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and homeowners' association. Any lots or building pads, identified in the hydrology study to be subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be constructed to conform with the City's flood damage prevention regulations. 27. All bridging, culverting and modifications to the existing creek channels must be in compliance with city standards and policies, the City's Flood Management Policy Book (specifically regarding clear spanning of creeks, etc.) and be approved by the Public Works Director,Army Corp of Engineers, and Fish&Game. 28. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director,the City's Natural Resources Manager and the Dept. of Fish&Game. 29. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 30. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of one or more acre. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Resources Control Board. 31. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the SWRCB shall be included in the PIP set. Utilities 32. It is necessary to be certain that all City facilities fall within proposed easements or property deeded to the City. The on-site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The water system shall be public with the water meters manifolded in groups, as much as possible. The City's minimum water main size is 8". A larger main may be needed in order to provide the necessary fire flows. 33. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a per residential basis. 34. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well or other non-potable water systems, including gray-water. All backflow preventers shall be approved by the University of Southern 4-LPa- Resolution No. XXXX-03 Page 8 Attachment 8 California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research. The project shall be coordinated with the County Cross-Connection Inspector; Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. 35. 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. 36. The irrigation systems for common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water-standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. Street Trees 37. Removal of(1) one pine tree approved with the replanting of several unique and common landscape trees per. proposed landscape plan. All other existing trees to remain with a tree protection plan developed for creek and native trees to the satisfaction of the city arborist. One street tree required per 35 lineal feet of street frontage or any part thereof. 38. Street tree selection may need to be revised considering available space and planted to city standards. Natural Resources Manager 39. Slopes consist of serpentine rocks, likely to contain rare or threatened plant species. Rock outcrop on south side of project should be protected, and encroachments onto hillside should be kept to a minimum. 40. Drainage on north side of access to the existing house on the hillside is not a creek but is good quality wildlife habitat. Plan apparently calls for protecting this feature. Natural Resources staff supports such protection. Transportation 41. The final development plan shall provide a plan showing locations and dimensions of on site parking also noting covered vs. uncovered. 42. The final development plan shall provide a plan explaining the EV proposal. 43. The final development plan shall describe and detail the bike bench concept. -L0'3 Resolution No. XXXX-03 Attachment 8 Page 9 On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of , 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: rney Jonathan Lowell G`.\\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\GPR 64-03 Bridge Street PD\COUNCIL Reso GPR 64-03.doc s ITS E3 NOVA LISOdX3 r7_1 a)o CL U) co a) co H [IF!, Mz, Attachment 9 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) T A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2560 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 215 BRIDGE STREET TR/ER 64-03 (TRACT 2560) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo recommended approval of Application TR/ER 64-03, a Planned Development subdivision with 22 lots, and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration at a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 5"', 2003; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the project and considered public testimony at a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 2, 2003; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 1. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Map for Medium density Residential because each dwelling has access to a satisfactory private open space area and the development would occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the medium high density residential zone. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under- developed site that is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way and it is close to the public transit and associated services. 3. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is adjacent to an existing residential developed site adjacent to existing roadways and additional residential dwellings, services are available to serve the development, and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards. -4-w'e ERITR 64-03 Attachment 9 215 Bridge Street 12-02-03 4. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site contains provisions to preserve and protect the creek, the hillside or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish or wildlife. 5. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development is a similar scale to existing development already functioning at the site. Additionally, new construction will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 6. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist. 7. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated with this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council does hereby adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. 1. New construction above the 175th contour shall be limited to a 25-foot maximum height limit. 2. Existing willow trees and blackberry brambles at the north boundary of the site shall remain in place and be protected during all phases of site construction. Other trees shall remain on site unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department and the City Arborist for removal. 3. If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare shall be required. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a required setbacks and site dimensions. Compliance with the site plan shall be verified through construction plan check and site review. A lighting photometric plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department as part of the construction plan check. An examination of installed lighting will be analyzed prior to occupancy of the site. A final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the construction plan check. Installed landscape will be reviewed prior to occupancy release. 4. Unless otherwise approved, an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District for review and approval prior to the start of any construction or grading activity. The plan, if required shall be implemented during all phases of earthwork at the site. Page 2 + ' 'I ERITR 64-03 Attachment 9 215 Bridge Street 12-02-03 5. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; 6. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; 7. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; 8. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; 9. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and 10.Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a NEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24) hours. Monitoring Program: An asbestos dust mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Air Quality District prior to issuance of a construction permit. City staff shall ensure compliance with standards through site inspections. 11. All construction activities including grading, vegetation removal, stockpiling, equipment storage etc. shall remain outside of the 20-foot creek setback line at all times. The creek setback line shall be established by the City's Natural Resource Manager and marked in the field. The setback area shall be fenced with orange construction fencing at all times, and shall be in place prior to beginning of construction. 12. Replacement of the bridge and associate improvements crossing the creek shall require permits from the Department of Fish and Game and review and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board unless otherwise exempted from such review. Monitoring Program: Prior to release of City construction permits, the riparian areas shall be inspected for fencing and erosion control protection. A separate permit shall be secured by the Department of Fish and Game and other applicable agencies prior to issuance of a City construction permit that allows work within or over the creek area. 13. During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. 14. Prior to removing or demolishing the existing residence at the property, all provisions of the City's Building Demolition and Relocation codes shall be utilized. This may include a 90-day notice advertised in a local newspaper offering the existing residence for re- location. Page 3 Attachment 9 ER/1R 64-03 215 Bridge Street 12-02-03 Monitoring Program: Ongoing field inspections by City staff and construction staff awareness shall ensure compliance with the mitigation measures. The project shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Demolition Ordinance for the demolition or relocation of the existing residence upon submittal of construction permit applications. 15. All site drainage shall be directed towards the public right of way or on site private drainage systerris unless other provisions are approved by the City. 16.Where feasible, driveways; parking areas or private streets shall be constructed of pervious materials such as turf block with the intention of increases on-site water percolation. 17. Structures on sites 1-8 shall be designed so as not to impede floodwaters through the use of open carports or other design features that will not block potential floodwaters. Monitoring Program: Construction plans, including a grading and drainage plan, shall reflect direction of drainage and identify any proposed detention or retention. Pervious paving materials (where used) shall be shown on the construction plans.. Drainage systems and applicable installations shall be incorporated into the site prior to final inspection. 18. A noise disclosure shall be recorded on the deeds for lots 1-4. The noise disclosure shall inform future tenants of lots 1-4 of the adjacent manufacturing uses and potential noise exposure. 19. Where possible considering the existing flood plain, a six-foot tall masonry wall shall be constructed at the west property line between manufacturing uses west of the subject property. The wall shall be designed as to not inhibit potential flood flows while helping to reduce noise impacts to units. Monitoring Program: A noise disclosure shall be recorded on the deeds of subject properties, along with the Final Subdivision Map, prior to final inspection of the construction. Plans for sound attenuation, including a wall (if feasible) shall be provided on the final construction drawings. All such improvements shall be completed prior to final inspection. Section 3. Approval. The City Council does hereby recommend approval of application ER/TR 64-03, subject to the following conditions and code requirements. 1. Prior to final approval of the General Plan and Zoning Map amendments and subdivision of the property the applicant shall submit a detailed development agreement that confirms the design of the project as reviewed by Community Development Staff with the application concept. The agreement shall outline the sustainable components of the project, the design and placement of the buildings and associated improvements. Page 4 y- L09 ER/TR 64-03 D Attachment 9 215 Bridge Street 12-02-03 2. Within 6 months of City Council approval the applicant shall prepare and submit a final development plan to the Community Development Director consistent with Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.62.060. 3. An affordable housing agreement consistent with the approved affordable housing proposal shall be submitted for review and.approval of the Community Development Director prior to proceeding to the Architectural Review Commission, following approval of the applicable entitlements by the City Council.. 4. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the project design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. 5. At least 25% of the common driveway and private outdoor driveway areas shall be designed with pervious surfaces such as pavers or turf block. 6. A common address sign shall be placed at the driveway intersection with Bridge Street. Address sign shall list all unit addresses and shall be reviewed with architectural plans for consistency with the proposed subdivision and the existing neighborhood. 7. The subdivider shall dedicate a public easement to allow pedestrian access through the site to a pathway that links to City Open Space property. 8. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement for all property above the 185-foot contour, within lots 1 through 21 to preserve the property as private open space. The easement shall be written to prohibit grading, construction and land disturbance other than pedestrian pathways or native landscape. Erosion control devices may be allowed within the open space easement. 9. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 10. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend,indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 11. The demolition of the existing residence shall be subject to the City's demolition and building relocation code and may be subject to a 90-day newspaper advertisement prior to demolition or removal. Public Right-of-way 12. Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications Page 5 4 r) ERITR 64-03 - Attachment 9 215 Bridge Street 12-02-03 (curbs, gutters & 2m sidewalks, full width street pavement, signing, striping, barricades, street lights,etc.). 13. A public improvement plan,prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval. All grades, layout, staking and cut-sheets necessary for the construction of street paving and frontage improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. 14. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the Bridge Street frontage. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 15. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the Bridge Street frontage. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 16. All proposed private streets shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and pavement design shall be based on a Traffic Index of 6.5. 17. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing,wiring,lumenaires,etc.)per City standards. Water,Sewer& Utilities 18. The proposed on-site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 19. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 20. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement for a public water system over all private streets or driveways, parking areas (including planters and raised medians) and common areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 21. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public street frontage(s),to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. 22. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. Utilities to new residences shall be underground. 23. The subdivider shall provide individual electrical, phone, television, natural gas, water service, and sewer connections to the approval of the affected utility companies and the Public Works Director. Page 6 ER/TR 64-03 Attachment 9 215 Bridge Street 12-02-03 Grading & Drainage 24. The applicant shall provide a complete hydrologic/hydraulic analysis as part of the final development plan that identifies the size requirements of the proposed detention basin. The runoff from the site post development shall not exceed that of predevelopment for the 2, 10, 100 year 24hour storm. Analysis and design of stormwater facilities shall be consistent with the City's Draft Watershed Management Plan. 25. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties will be required. The scope of the study must include analysis of all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of disposal. Detention facilities may be required. All proposed detention basin and drainage improvements, except those within a public street, shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and homeowners' association. Any lots or building pads, identified in the hydrology study to be subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be constructed to conform with the City's flood damage prevention regulations. 26. All bridging, culverting and modifications to the existing creek channels must be in compliance with city standards and policies, the City's Flood Management Policy Book (specifically regarding clear spanning of creeks, etc.) and be approved by the Public Works Director, Army Corp of Engineers, and Fish&Game. 27. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director,the City's Natural Resources Manager and the Dept. of Fish&Game. 28. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 29. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of one or more acre. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Resources Control Board. 30. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the SWRCB shall be included in the PIP set. Mapping Requirements - The tentative map shall show topo for the entire subdivision and shall be produced on an 18"x 26"sheet. Page 7 4- 991- ERl1'R 64-03 Attachment 9 215 Bridge Street 12-02=03 31. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor in accordance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act, the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision City's Regulations. 32. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991.35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" meters) for direct import into the Geographic Information System (GLS) database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier (model space in real world coordinates, NAD 83 - m). If you have any questions regarding format,please call prior to submitting electronic data. 33.The final map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 34. Electronic files and stamped and signed drawings shall be submitted for all public improvement plans prior to map recordation or commencing with improvements, whichever occurs first. Submittal documents shall include the AutoCAD compatible drawing files and any associated plot files along with one original, stamped and signed, ink on mylar set of plans. 35. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans and record drawings, compatible with AutoCAD for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, in accordance with the City's Engineering Standards, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 36. The map shall be recorded prior to occupancy of any of the units. Otherwise, the map shall be processed as a condo conversion per Municipal Code Chapter 17.82. Utilities 37. It is necessary to be certain that all City facilities fall within proposed easements or property deeded to the City. The on-site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners' association. The water system shall be public with the water meters manifolded in groups, as much as possible. The City's minimum water main size is 8". A larger main may be needed in order to provide the necessary fire flows. 38. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a per residential basis. Page 8 ER/TR 64-03 Attachment 9 215 Bridge Street 12-02-03 39. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well or other non-potable water systems, including gray-water. All backflow preventers shall be approved by the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research. The project shall be coordinated with the County Cross-Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. 40. 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. 41. The irrigation systems for common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of , 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Page 9 `t "ri`t" ER/TR 64-03 Attachment 9 215 Bridge Street 12-02-03 City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ci rney Jonatfi*Lowell G:\\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\GPR 64-03 Bridge Street Mcc SUB Resolution 63-03.doc Page 10 4^ f1S Attachment 10 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. (2003 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR PROPERTY AT 215 BRIDGE STREET FROM C/OS 5 TO R-2-PD AND C/OS 5 GP/R/ER 154-02 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 5,2003 and recommended approval of amendments to the City's Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 2, 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 rezoning is 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 11. Environmental Determination. 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. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings: 1. The amendment of the Zoning Map will bring the map into compliance with the General Plan Map and allow the site to be developed with residential land uses under a similar density to existing adjacent development. Planned Development Findings 2. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the proposed land use is allowed within the applicable primary zoning district if the General Plan Map and Zoning Map is amended as proposed; 3. The project complies with all applicable provisions of these Zoning Regulations other than those modified by the PD rezoning; 4. The approved modifications to the development standards of these Zoning Regulations are necessary and appropriate to accommodate the superior design of the proposed project, its compatibility with adjacent land uses, and its successful mitigation of environmental impacts and its proposed affordable housing features and sustainable building concepts; Attachment 10 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) GP/R 64-03 Page 2 5. The project complies with all applicable City Design Guidelines and will be reviewed by the City's Architectural Review Commission for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines prior to approval; 6. All affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project; 7. The location, size, site planning, building design features, and operating characteristics of the project are highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood, and will be compatible with the character of the site, and the land uses and development intended for the surrounding neighborhood by the General Plan; 8. The site is adequate for the project in terms of size, configuration topography, and other applicable features, and has appropriate access to public streets with adequate capacity to accommodate the quantity and type of traffic expected to be generated by the use; and 9. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project will not, in the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. SECTION 3. Action. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (GP/R 64-03), as depicted on attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a detailed development agreement that confirms the design of the project as reviewed by Community Development Staff with the application concept. The agreement shall outline the sustainable components of the project, the design and placement of the buildings and associated improvements. Amendment of the Planned Development for development other than a sustainable, affordable housing project shall require review and approval of an amendment by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. Within 6 months of City Council approval the applicant shall prepare and submit a final development plan to the Community Development Director consistent with Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.62.060. 3. An affordable housing agreement consistent with the approved affordable housing proposal shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to proceeding to the Architectural Review Commission, following approval of the applicable entitlements by the City Council. 4. An open space easement shall be recorded for all property above the 185-foot contour, within lots i through 21 to preserve the property as private open space. The easement shall be written to prohibit grading, construction and land disturbance other than pedestrian pathways, native landscape or adequate fire clearance as prescribed by the City �.1 - _ Attachment 10 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) GP/R 64-03 Page 3 Fire Department. Erosion control devices and drainage devices may be allowed within the open space easement. 5. The Zoning Map boundary between R-2-PD and C/OS-5 shall follow the 185-foot elevation contour for this property consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map. 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 2nd day of December, 2003, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _ day of 2003, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: qty omey JonattAn Lowell G:\\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\GPR 64-03 Bridge Street PD\GPR 64-03 ord cc.doc 4- 9g - aia vyu < w x� LO UL0 0 LU 0 m 0 v 0 40- LO LO T Attachment 11 RESOLUTION NO. -03 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM MANUFACTURING AND C/OS TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND C/OS AND ADJUSTING THE DEVELOPMENT LIMIT LINE TO THE 185 FOOT CONTOUR FOR PROPERTY AT 215 BRIDGE STREET GP/R/ER 64-03 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 5, 2003 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/ER 64-03, Bridge Street Corporation, applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 2, 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, BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 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 Commission. 2. The amended development limit line location from the 175 to 185 foot contour is not consistent with hillside planning text policies that are designed to protect scenic vistas and allow adequate distribution of public services such as water sewer and fire protection. 3. The new development limit line is not consistent with the adjacent neighborhood and does not contribute to the preservation of sensitive hillside areas. 4. Amendment of the General Plan Map from Manufacturing to Medium Density Residential is not consistent with the General Plan text policies that encourage the preservation and expansion of existing residential neighborhoods. 5. A medium density residential land use designation is not appropriate for this site and will not be compatible with the existing and future land use pattern since adjacent land uses are manufacturing and the site is not appropriate for residential development. 4 -9D Resolution No. XXXX-03 Page 2 Attachment 11 SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby denies the request (GP/R/ER 64-03) for a general plan amendment and rezoning for the property at 215 Bridge Street: On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of , 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jonathon Lowell G:\\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\GPR 64-03 Bridge Street PD\COUNCIL Reso GPR 64-03.doc BOARD:oF Twsr Fs / Bob Lavelle,mair �. -IOW° Arlene Wmn,Prea,7mr ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER Holly Zig,Se=twy OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 9 ` —"—"` 70an Carter 3 P.O.Box 1014 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 Tim O'Keefe �/� Sandra Smod Tel. (805)544-1777 U Jan Marx Fax:(805)544-1871 Audrey peter info@ecoslo.org L,A`l J Moore Mike Wina Jodee Brett Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members, My name is Sandra Sarrout board of trustee for ECOSLO and member of the SLO City Housing Element Update Advisory Task Force. I am writing this letter on behalf of the board of ECOSLO in support of the Bridge Street Project. ECOSLO also known as the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo is a 32 yr old non-profit environmental organization dedicated to protecting human health and the natural environment in SLO County. Before you is a project that will serve as a model.for future developments. It supports many principles in the City's housing Element by actually building affordable and moderate housing and implementing truly sustainable practices. By sustainable, I don't mean a couple of low flush toilets and fluorescent light bulbs other developers may claim as sustainable. Our initial concern with this project was the fear of loosing and rezoning open-space for development. After review of the project and discussion with the applicants, however, we feel they have made efforts above and beyond any requirements to maintain no net-loss of open space. The owners have agreed to deed parcels of land into conservationlopen space,which is a permanent step topreserving our natural landscape. The net result is more open space then we have now. The fact that much of this area is zoned Manufacturing and could in the future be sold and developed to allow an industrial facility would destroy the habitat, become a nuisance to neighbors and exacerbate our housing crisis. Buyers will be presented with disclosures that they live near a manufacturing facility.People buy homes near agricultural fields where thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals are used, near railroad tracks, or other areas that have some form of pollution. Buyers will make the conscious decision to buy or not buy. It does not make sense for the city to demand more from this applicant, such as quantifying energy savings or increasing parking, (parking requirements have been met)when the city does not ask this of other development proposals. The Bridge Street project offers no net loss of O/S AND truly incorporates the principles of sustainability. This development will demonstrate how you can provide affordable housing, build green, build healthy, make a profit and protect our natural resources all at the same time. This is your opportunity to provide housing in a way that respects our environment. Sincerely, RECEIVED Sandra Sarrou£ DEC — 2 2003 ECOSLO Board Member Prtntedon100%RecycledPaper SLO CITY CLERK / _ 411IIIIII�III���������IIIIVIIIIu council mcmoaanoum Cit of San Luis Obis DATE: TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO FROM: Lee Price, City Clerk SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING AND ADJUSTMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT LIMIT LINE TO ACCOMMODATE A 22 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT 215 BRIDGE STREET—Environmental Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Vice Mayor Mulholland inquired this morning about the availability of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bridge Street project. The documents were placed in the Council Reading File. Given the community interest in this project, staff is providing a copy of this information to each of you individually, and further, to the public at the counter and on the City's website. Cow it Memo TmWLwe �IllgnN�llllll�811������� �IUIIIIIIIIII `city luisoBispoj 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER#64-03 1. Project Title: Bridge Street Project Tract 2560, GP/R/TR 64-03 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner (805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: 215 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: John and Mary Semon, Bridge Street Corporation, 1.130 Garden Street Suite A, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Services & Manufacturing and Conservation/Open Space 7. Zoning: Conservation/Open Space 8. Description of the Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezone and Planned Development to accommodate a 22-lot residential subdivision and associated improvements. Part of the General Plan Amendment would modify the location of the development limit line from the 175-foot contour up to the 195- foot contour at the base of the South Street Hills.. The existing General Plan Map designates the majority of the site as Conservation/Open Space while the remainder of the property, which is more level and where development is proposed, is designated Manufacturing. The Zoning Map is not entirely consistent with the General Plan Map showing the entire property as Conservation/ Open Space. The amendment will designate 2.67 acres as Medium-Density Residential, with 9,839 square feet remaining in Manufacturing adjacent to Bridge Street and 5.06 acres on the hillside remaining in Conservation/Open Space. The proposed project is an affordable and sustainable housing project incorporating innovative "greed" building ,practices. The proposed residences will incorporate a steel structure with an ecologically sensitive wall system. The residences propose to utilize solar energy as a supplemental power source in addition to being linked to the power grid.. OThe 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. i 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The subject parcel is a 7.73-acre flag lot site with the flagpole portion of the lot accessing Bridge Street. The property is currently a single parcel and contains two residences accessible from a narrow, paved driveway. The rear of the property, behind the proposed development site, slopes up in a southward direction with slopes ranging from 20% to 25% and greater. The proposed development site on the property lies within a fairly level area at the base of this slope. It is bordered to the west by the Bailey Bridge Building and to the south by an open space area known as the "South Street Hills". The east border is located adjacent to additional open space property within the South Street Hills, while an existing R-2 residential subdivision is located to the north east of the property. A seasonal creek intersects the lower portion of the property adjacent to Bridge Street. The Land Use Map indicates that the portion of the property below the 175-foot contour is within the Manufacturing designation, while property above that contour line is .within the Conservation/Open Space designation. The Zoning Map identifies the entire property as Conservation/Open Space. Other properties bordering Bridge Street within the project vicinity are zoned Manufacturing . 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The project proposes the following: 1. General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use from Manufacturing to Medium-Density Residential, and minor adjustment of the development limit line to accommodate residential development. 2. Zone Map Change to allow R-2-PD (Medium-Density Residential Planned Development) on land zoned Conservation/Open Space. 3. Tentative Tract Map to allow a 22-lot residential planned development subdivision. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: California Department of Fish and Game �/ Cmr OF SAN LUIS OBIspo 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 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. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials X Air Quality X Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems X Cultural Resources X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES X 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. 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 ommentSTATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be.submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). heti CrrY of SAN Luis OstsPo 3 INMAL STUDY ENvmONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2003 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation; I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been X 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 prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"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. September 25,2003 Signature Date Pamela Ricci Acting Deputy Community Development Director For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director `i CRY OF SANLuis Omspo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 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 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 Code of Regulations. 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 OBMIO 5 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Issues, Discussion and Suppt. dormation Sources Sources Potentially Less Than No Bridge Street Project GP/R1TR 64-03 S,r,nficant Significant Significant Impact ER#(i4-03 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 _X_ to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings 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? Evaluation The project site is not located within a scenic vista, however a portion of the development will extend towards the base of the South Street Hills. The higher portions of the South Street Hills are considered a scenic vista within the City. The development limit line at the site is the 175-foot contour. The limit line was established in accordance with water pressure standards for the vicinity, and does not directly correlate with the preservation of the viewshed of a scenic vista. The significant viewshed of this portion of the property starts at approximately the 300-foot contour and above. Extensive residential development already exists above the 175-foot contour and up to the 300-foot contour within this vicinity. The proposed project is requesting to re-establish a development limit line at the 195-foot contour at this property. Because this elevation is well below the 300-foot contour that is considered a significant vista, modifying the development line to the 195- foot contour will not result in significant impacts to a scenic vista. Since the proposed development will be located behind existing commercial properties, there will be limited visibility to the site from the public roadway (Bridge Street). A seasonal creek and its associated vegetation that includes willow trees and native shrubs further screens the proposed project site from the roadway and adjacent properties. No new substantial sources of light or glare are anticipated from the project since the proposal is a small-scale residential project with a private driveway. Less than significant lighting impacts are anticipated since no substantial light sources are proposed with the project. Mitigation Measures:Aesthetics a) New construction above the 175-foot contour shall be limited to a 25-foot maximum height limit. b) Existing willow trees and blackberry brambles at the north boundary of the site shall remain in place and be protected during all phases of site construction. Other trees shall remain on site unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department and the City Arborist for removal. c) If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare shall be required,to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of _X__ Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps 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- cultural use? Evaluation The existing site and vicinity is not shown as prime farmland on California Resources Agency maps. Property adjacent to the proposed development site has historically been utilized for cattle grazing. No impacts to existing on-site or off-site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site. �/ CITY OF SAN Luis Oetspo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENviRONAAENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Issues, Discussion and Suppo, .formation Sources Sources F Potentially Less Than No Bridge Street Project GP/R/TR 64-03 Sig.--cant Significant Significant Impact ER#64-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an _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 -people? e) 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)? Impacts from the actual development, including but not limited to excavation and construction of the site,has the potential to create dust and vehicle emissions that may exceed air quality standards for a temporary and intermittent periods unless mitigation measures are incorporated. Following completion of construction,the proposed project is anticipated to create less than significant impacts to air quality. Naturally Occurring Asbestos has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common in the City of San Luis Obispo and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure(ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, the applicant must comply with all applicable requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM, prior to any construction or grading activities at the site. Mitigation Measures: Air Quality The following dust mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution impacts associated with grading and construction of the site. They are required from the start, and are to be maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: a) Unless otherwise approved, an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District for review and approval prior to the start of any construction or grading activity. The plan, if required shall be implemented during all phases of earthwork at the site. b) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less; c) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; e) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; f) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road;and g) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INRIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcwsT 2003 Issues, Discussion and Suppo iormation Sources Sources F Potentially toss Than No Bridge Street Project GP/R/I'R 64-03 Sig...ucant Significant Significant Impact ER#64-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or __X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a 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 biological resources,resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory 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? The upper areas of the South Street Hills contain extensive areas of serpentine rock that may contain sensitive plant species. The proposed project site is outside of areas containing extensive serpentine rock and is characterized by a grass-covered pasture. Therefore, no impacts to this habitat are anticipated. The project proposes construction adjacent to a seasonal creek. The main project driveway crosses this creek and a new bridge spanning the creek will be a component of the project. The seasonal creek at this location has been historically diverted and channelized to accommodate adjacent commercial development. The project, as proposed, complies with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance,as all new construction will not encroach into the established setbacks of the creek channel. The project does not include grading or other modifications to the creek channel. No known candidate, sensitive, or special status species occur within the riparian habitat of the creek,or within areas beyond the creek corridor that will be impacted by the proposed project. Mitigation is necessary to ensure compliance with the Creek Setback Ordinance, and to prevent construction vehicles,dirt,debris,or other items from entering the creek channel or setback area. Mitigation is also necessary to guide the development of a replacement bridge at the main driveway. Mitigation Measures: Biological Resources a) All construction activities including grading, vegetation removal, stockpiling, equipment storage etc. shall remain outside of the 20-foot creek setback line at all times. The creek setback line shall be established by the City's Natural Resource Manager and marked in the field. The setback area shall be fenced with orange construction fencing,and shall be in place prior to the beginning of construction and throughout the duration of construction. b) Replacement of the bridge and associated improvements crossing the creek shall require permits from the Department of Fish and Game unless otherwise exempted from such review. �� CRY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 8 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Issues, Discussion and Suppol tformation Sources Sources Pt I Potentially Less Than No Bridge Street Project GP/R/I R 64-03 Sigmncant Significant Significant Impact ER#64-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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_ archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 150645) 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__ formalcemeteries? C.A. Singer & Associates, a qualified archeology firm, performed a phase 1 surface examination of the property and a research of historic records associated with the site and vicinity. The property does not contain any known historic resources or former historic structures. The site does contain two residences, one of which appears to be representative of early to mid 1920's construction. The residence is not considered a contributing historic residence and research of City records has not revealed any significant information about the residence or site.At this time the residence does not meet the minimum criteria for nomination to the California Register of Historic Resources. Additionally,the archeological survey of the property did not reveal any prehistoric or early historic resources The former known use of this property and surrounding vicinity is grazing. As-is common with sites adjacent to creeks, the site may contain archeological resources associated with Native Americans. No known archeological sites exist on or adjacent to the project site. No known paleontological sites exist within the project site or vicinity. The site contains geologic features that consist of serpentine rock and shallow soils. The areas containing extensive serpentine rock-a?e within the slopes above the proposed building sites. No significant impacts are anticipated to occur to existing geologic features. Mitigation Measures: Cultural Resources a) During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. b) Prior to removing or demolishing the existing residence at the property, all provisions of the City's Building Demolition and Relocation codes shall be utilized. This may include a 90-day notice advertised in a local newspaper offering the existing residence for re-location. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?b) Use Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) 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? This project is a proposal to construct a "sustainable" housing development designed to conserve water, energy, and other natural resources. The proposed project does not conflict with the CitX;s energy conservation plan and the project incorporates energy conserving features such as solar energy sources and energy efficient building materials. No known mineral resources are known to the project site or immediate vicinity. No impacts to energy and mineral resources are anticipated. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse L —X— `/ Crry OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2003 Issues, Discussion and Supp% , .,ormation Sources Sources Potentially Less Than No Bridge Street Project GP/R1TR 64-03 s,s,nficant Significant Significant Impact ER#64-03 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated 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,subsidence, 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 ? The project is located at the base of the South Street Hills. At this location, surface soils are thin and the ground surface consists of exposed serpentine rock outcroppings between sparsely vegetated surface soil areas. There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. The project is not likely to result in the loss of topsoil or substantial erosion since no significant grading is proposed in order to construct the future home sites. Moderately expansive soils are common in the project vicinity. All new construction will require a City building permit,and therefore require construction that will meet or exceed building code standards for these soils. As proposed,the project is not likely to create significant impacts to area geology or soils. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r( 'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment _X_ through 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 materials sites 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 two miles miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? Crrr OF SAN Luis OBispo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2003 Issues, Discussion and Suppo .rformation Sources Sources r J Potentially Less Than No Bridge Street Project GP/R/TR 64-03 Sib...ocant Significant Significant Impact ER#64-03 Issues Unless impact Mitigation incorporated g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the _X__ adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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? The project proposal does not involve hazardous materials or hazardous conditions. The project involves a land use change, planned development subdivision and the development of a residential housing project. A portion of the project is proposed to be constructed adjacent to an existing Manufacturing building currently utilized for small scale manufacturing of building materials. Although the project proposes residential dwelling units on a site adjacent to the manufacturing building, less than significant impacts are likely to occur since the manufacturing use does not involve significant quantities of hazardous materials and the use does not produce significant emissions. Furthermore, the residential units that are proposed in the vicinity of the Manufacturing building will be Work-Live units. A work-live unit is intended to function predominantly as workspace with incidental residential accommodations that meet basic habitability requirements. Work-Live units are currently an allowed use within the Manufacturing district with approval of a Use Permit, subject to requirements in the Zoning Ordinance section 17.08.120. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge _X_ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing 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 capacity of of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? 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? 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 mapped on --X-- a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into __X__ ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? The project site is within an area designated as a 100-year flood plain(Zone AO,area of shallow flooding with a 2 foot depth) on the City of San Luis Obispo Flood Insurance Rate Map. A Preliminary Flood Impact Analysis has been prepared for the project. As noted in the report, structures that are proposed to be built within the vicinity of the creek could impede flows unless constructed with provisions to allow water to flow through in a flood condition. If the structures were built without CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Issues, Discussion and Suppot. ,formation Sources Sources P Potentially lrss Than No Bridge Street Project GP/R/ R 64-03 Siggnncant Significant Significant Impact ER#1i4-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated mitigation to allow water to flow through the site, the report states that the project may result in a net increase in the base flood elevation of.9 feet, which is less than the allowed one-foot maximum cumulative rise permitted in accordance with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations. If necessary, the proposed structures could be modified to allow for additional passage of floodwater through open carports to reduce the impacts to the base flood elevation. In this case the structures nearest the floodway are proposed to be constructed with ground floor carports that will allow water to flow through the structure, therefore not impeding floodwater flows. The building code and associated City ordinances will also require all structures within this vicinity to be built with finish habitable floors to be constructed at least one foot above the flood plain. At the south end of the site, new structures are proposed at the base of a 1-2 foot wide natural swale that originates approximately 100-feet above the property in the hillside. The drainage swale is not considered a creek or a significant drainage and is proposed to be maintained on site, adjacent to the proposed structures. The small size of the watershed and historic seasonal flows within this drainage are not significant and do not create flooding issues that warrant additional mitigation. As required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board the project will be required to utilize Best Management Practices in handling site drainage and runoff. An on-site drainage basin will be provided to handle the existing site drainage. Proposed house plans will contain individual water catchment basins that are designed to accommodate roof drainage for future on-site irrigation. The project proposes to utilize alternative paving materials for roads and paths to allow increased site percolation. A drainage and hydrology study has been prepared to identify how the site development will accommodate existing and developed site drainage. Mitigation Measures: Hydrology and Water Quality 1. All site drainage shall be directed towards the public right of way or on site private drainage systems unless other provisions are approved by the City. 2. Where feasible, driveways, parking areas or private streets shall be constructed of pervious materials such as turf block to enhance on-site water percolation. 3. Structures on sites 1-8 shall be designed so as not to impede floodwaters through the use of open carports or other design features that will not block potential floodwaters. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of —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 communityconservationconservationplans? A portion of the site is zoned for manufacturing uses as identified within the City's General Plan. Although a larger portion of this property is designated as Conservation/Open Space, the majority of the proposed development site is within an area currently designated as Manufacturing. The proposed project will change the land use pattern to allow residential development instead of manufacturing at this portion of the property. Adjacent uses, consisting of medium and low-density housing, and commercial office uses would be considered compatible with planned homes and Work-Live units. A portion of the project is adjacent to a Manufacturing business that specializes in metal works. This portion of the proposed project, however, proposes Work-Live units. Work-Live units are workspaces that must be utilized primarily for a commercial venture while allowing incidental residential accommodations on site. The commercial or workspace is the predominant use and residential uses are an incidental component of these structures. Work-Live units are presently allowed within the Manufacturing District. �r CrrY of SAN Luis OsisPO 12 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Issues, Discussion and Suppc. ^ iormation Sources Sources Potentially Liss Than No Bridge Street Project GP/R/TR 64-03 Sig,aficant Significant Significant Impact ER#64 03 Issues Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated The proposed residential use does not conflict with any known habitat conservation plan or applicable land use plan,and is in fact a lower intensity use than the current Manufacturing designation allows. Amending the land use plan to allow housing instead of manufacturing is likely to reduce site impacts associated with future development at this location. The addition of affordable housing will help to reduce the City's Jobs/Housing imbalance. No impacts to Land Use and Planning are anticipated. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise _X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in _X_ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne _X_ vibration or groundborne 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? The project is not anticipated to expose persons to unacceptable noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element. The proposed General Plan Amendment places housing adjacent to other residential areas and hillside open space. Housing units proposed adjacent to existing manufacturing properties will be Work-Live units that contain primarily workspaces combined with incidental living spaces. Occupants of these dwellings may be within close proximity to an adjacent manufacturing building, however the existing manufacturing use is a low intensity daytime only use. However, a noise disclosure should be recorded with the deeds of new properties within close proximity of the existing manufacturing building. Following completion of site construction,the proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive noise levels. Other than short-term construction noise the completed project will not place residents within close proximity of excessive noise levels. Less than significant impacts to noise exposure is anticipated with proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: Noise a) A noise disclosure shall be recorded on the deeds for lots 1-4. These properties are to remain as Work/Live units, with incidental living spaces, unless a commercial land use is established in compliance with the Manufacturing District. The noise disclosure shall inform future tenants of lots 14 of the adjacent manufacturing uses and potential noise exposure. b) A six-foot tall masonry wall shall be constructed at the west property line to further attenuate sounds from manufacturing uses west of the subject property. The wall shall be designed as to not inhibit potential flood flows while helping to reduce noise impacts to Work-Live units. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the ro'ect: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 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 necessitating the the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ��i CnY OF SAN LUIS Oelspo 13 INn1AL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Issues, Discussion and Suppo, y .formation Sources Sources F Potentially Less Than No Bridge Street Project GP/R!I R 64-03 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#64-03 Issues unless Mitigation Impact Incorporated The proposed project will amend the City's General Plan, to allow housing on a site that is currently allocated for manufacturing uses. The proposed development plan will allow housing with densities equivalent to adjacent residential areas in this vicinity (12 units per net acre). A total of 22 residential lots are proposed. This amount of new housing, in combination with other known separate residential projects, is not considered substantial population growth, and is consistent with growth rates contained in the City's General Plan. 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? _X_ b) Police protection? C) Schools? _X__ d) Parks? --X` e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? —X— Other public facilities? _X_ The project will not create significant impacts to local public services since it is currently adjacent to a developed residential and manufacturing area of the City that is currently served by City utilities and associated infrastructure. The development of the project will require the installation of new water mains and sewer connections. The City Fire and Police Departments have indicated that the new site can be served with adequate response times. The project will be subject to impact fees that will cumulatively offset any increased demands on roads and other public services. As discussed in the traffic section, the project will be subject to road improvements in order to create safe and adequate circulation to the site. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or _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? The project will be constructed adjacent to City Open Space and nearby Meadow Park. A component of the project includes a trail that will link to other City Open Space trails. The subdivision of the property will be subject to Park In-Lieu fees that will offset any increase in facility use.No significant impacts to recreation facilities are anticipated. 15. TRANSPORTATIONtMAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the __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? Oji CITY OF SAN Luis 0eisPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2003 Issues, Discussion and Suppor, iformation Sources Sources P I Potentially less Than No Bridge Street Project GP/R/TR 64-03 Sigi,,,tcant Significant Significant Impact ER#64-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated The project will introduce 22 residential lots to a site that is currently a single parcel with 2 single-family residences. A new access driveway developed to City Standards will provide site access to the residential lots from Bridge Street. Bridge Street is developed to current City standards. The new driveway serving the project will include a new bridge crossing at the existing creek near Bridge Street. The project proposes on site parking for each residence in addition to an adequate visitor parking facilities. Bicycle parking is proposed in bike benches throughout the site. A bicycle bench is simply a metal bench with metal slats wide enough to secure a bicycle fire within the seat portion of the bench. The City Fire Department has reviewed the proposed access to the site and agrees that the proposed development will result in adequate emergency access. The proposed project site is outside of the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan area. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable _X_ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water __X_ treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control,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 in 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? The City currently has water to allocate,and does so on a"first-come, first-served"basis. A water allocation is required,due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a per residential basis. Section 13.08.130B of the Municipal Code states that no polluted water may be discharged to a drainage system that flows to any creek or to the City storm drain system. Typically, mitigation measures are necessary to prevent polluted discharge. However,the proposed residences are designed to capture water in individual catchment basins that will satisfactorily mitigate potential impacts. In Summary the project is anticipated to create less than significant impacts to utilities and service systems when the site is developed consistent with City standards and in accordance with code requirements recommended by the City Utilities Department. 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 prehisto ? tib CITY OF SAN LUIS OBispo 15 INMAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Issues, Discussion and Suppo. ..iformation Sources Sources I Potentially Less Than No Bridge Street Project GP/RJTR 64-03 Sig,,,ticantSignificant Significant Impact ER#64-03 Issues unless Impact Mitigation incorporated N/A b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable?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) N/A c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause --X-- substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? N/A CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPo 16 INmAL STUDY ENwRONmExTAL CHEcKuST 2003 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. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist werewithin 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. N/A 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. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,July 2002 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation Element,July 1973 6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,Aril 1981 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996 8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database 11. Site Visit 12. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 13. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 14. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District, 1995 15. Preliminary Flood Analysis prepared by Mike Bertaccini,EDA September 3,2003. 16. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996 17. 2001 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report 18. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 19. Phase 1 archeology C.A.Singer and associates,Inc.August 20,2003 20. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma 21. Cit of San Luis Obispo Burial SensitivityMa 22. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department 23. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 24. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981 25. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan 26. Architectural Review Guidelines 27. 1997 Uniform Building Code All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California(805)781-7522. issues, Discussion and Suppi. ,iformation Sources Sources y Potentially Less Than No St6...ncanl Significant Significant Impact GP/R/TR/ER 64-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 215 Bridge Street Incorporated REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Aesthetics. 1. New construction above the 175th contour shall be limited to a 25-foot maximum height limit. 2. Existing willow trees and blackberry brambles at the north boundary of the site shall remain in place and be protected during all phases of site construction. Other trees shall remain on site unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department and the City Arborist for removal. 3. If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare shall be required. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a required setbacks and site dimensions. Compliance with the site plan shall be verified through construction plan check and site review. A lighting photometric plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department as part of the construction plan check. An examination of installed lighting will be analyzed prior to occupancy of the site. A final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the construction plan check. Installed landscape will be reviewed prior to occupancy release. Air Quality The following mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution associated with grading and construction of the site. These mitigation measures are required at the start and maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: 1. Unless otherwise approved, an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District for review and approval prior to the start of any construction or grading activity. The plan, if required shall be implemented during all phases of earthwork at the site. 2. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15) miles per hour or less; 3. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; 4. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; 5. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; 6. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and 7. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24) hours. Monitoring Program: An asbestos dust mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Air Quality District prior to issuance of a construction permit. City staff shall ensure compliance with standards through site inspections. Biological Resources 1. All construction activities including grading, vegetation removal, stockpiling, equipment storage etc. shall remain outside of the 20-foot creek setback line at all times. The creek setback line shall be CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Issues, Discussion and Supper , tfohrhation Sources sources , Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact GP/R/TR/ER 64-03 Issues unless Impact Mitigation 215 Bridge Street Incorporated established by the City's Natural Resource Manager and marked in the field. The setback area shall be fenced with orange construction fencing at all times, and shall be in place prior to beginning of construction. 2. Replacement of the bridge and associate improvements crossing the creek shall require permits from the Department of Fish and Game and review and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board unless otherwise exempted from such review. Monitoring Program: Prior to release of City construction permits, the riparian areas shall be inspected for fencing and erosion control protection. A separate permit shall be secured by the Department of Fish and Game and other applicable agencies prior to issuance of a City construction permit that allows work within or over the creek area. Cultural Resources 1. During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator.' 2. Prior to removing or demolishing the existing residence at the property, all provisions of the City's Building Demolition and Relocation codes shall be utilized. This may include a 90-day notice advertised in a local newspaper offering the existing residence for re-location. Monitoring Program: Ongoing field inspections by City staff and construction staff awareness shall ensure compliance with the mitigation measures. The project shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Demolition Ordinance for the demolition or relocation of the existing residence upon submittal of construction permit.applications. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. All site drainage shall be directed towards the public right of way or on site private drainage systems unless other provisions are approved by the City. 2. Where feasible, driveways, parking areas or private streets shall be constructed of pervious materials such as turf block with the intention of increases on-site water percolation. 3. Structures on sites 1-8 shall be designed so as not to impede floodwaters through the use of open carports or other design features that will not block potential floodwaters. 4. Monitoring Program: �L Crry of SAN LUIS OBispo 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CmcmtsT 2003 Issue_s, Discussion and Suppo., _'I :..formation Sources Sources Potentially Less Than No Stg„aicant Significant Significant Impact GP/Fi/TR/ER 64-03 Issues Unless Impact 215 Bridge Street �,�ed Construction plans, including a grading and drainage plan, shall reflect direction of drainage and identify any proposed detention or retention. Pervious paving materials (where used) shall be shown on the construction plans. Drainage systems and applicable installations shall be incorporated into the site prior to final inspection. Noise 1. A noise disclosure shall be recorded on the deeds for lots 1-4. These properties are to remain as Work/Live units, with incidental living spaces, unless a commercial land use is established in compliance with the Manufacturing District. The noise disclosure shall inform future tenants of lots 1-4 of the adjacent manufacturing uses and potential noise exposure. 2. Where possible considering the existing flood plain, a six-foot tall masonry wall shall be constructed at the west property line between manufacturing uses west of the subject property. The wall shall be designed as to not inhibit potential flood flows while helping to reduce noise impacts to workAive units. Monitoring Program: A noise disclosure shall be recorded on the deeds of subject properties, along with the Final Subdivision Map, prior to final inspection of the construction. Plans for sound attenuation, including a wall (if feasible) shall be provided on the final construction drawings. All such improvements shall be completed prior to final inspection. Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced scale project plans. Attachment 3: Applicant's design statement Attachment 4: Phase 1 archeology C.A. Singer and associates, Inc. August 20, 2003 R/ CnY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 - -- --------- - till ,._L N s..== =J'=`— r! a SS ,i iiiiii7iiiiiiiiiiiiii �p 6 t Q a ! � �Sft !!tt �ta ---i7 ^— IS !�!! !I "•99ttElHQQii!!t!!!!!!E � � AB ` �,g � • a Il1�! SJF ` Jul i ieg ir : S iii5iiiiiiiiiiiiii7 ;lilgg!!!!!!!!!!!!q$9!Ia9@ m S4S5§5455§§§55455§4§5§ ' �7 e � i QP 4 � � t! I•; .• , .-�. g � E iiiifii i EI(@(! i, .4 ! (5 7777!77 7777 \I §�� 4,,L?c m Ylloi�1091 1RI33 5Q� Syi!!59� g '}•,€ 1 @@' ill = g II! �Q� i l al. Iq@mI - \ ',N , I III it A I a i FIE Y 1 I I I I I f I I � I I � gill I I I I 1 1--------------------�=--------------------1 REC`D 2003 1 C11 Y Co. W l2 7 lilu j C.A. SINGER & ASSOCIATES, iamMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Archaeology•Cultural Resources& Lithic Studies Mr. Bob Crizer August 20,-2003 Crizer Construction P.O. Box 6952 Los Osos, CA 93412 Subject: Cultural resources survey and impact assessment for a 2.9 acre property at 215 Bridge Street in the City of San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo County, California[APN 004-811-024). Dear Mr. Crizer; Per your faxed request, a cultural resources survey has been completed for a parcel located in the southern part of the City of San Luis Obispo. Designated APN 004-811-024, the property is about 0.7 km east of San Luis Obispo Creek, and U.S. Highway 161, and 0.4 km south of South Street. Situated on the north flank of serpentinitzed hill, the property is a rectangular area linked to nearby Bridge Street,a cul-de-sac lined with commercial buildings,by a narrow strip of land(see attached maps). On August 18, 2003, a pedestrian survey revealed no prehistoric or early historic resources in the area. Two small houses arc located on the property; both were documented and one has been recorded as an historic property (see Attachment A). Two location maps, two drawings, and a set of historic site record forms are attached. Figure I is a portion of the USGS San Luis Obispo, Calif., 7.5' topographic quadrangle showing the location and dimensions of the surveyed area. APN 004-811-024. Figure 2 is part of the County Assessor's Map with the surveyed property, APN 004-811-024, indicated(hachcd). Figure 3 is a sketch map showing the recorded house,the drainage channel,access road and other features in the 2.9 acre proposed development area. Figure 4 is a sketch plan of the house at 215 Bridge Street, historic property#P40-041146. Attachment A is a copy of the completed set of historic property record forms [DPR 5231 for the house at 215 Bridge Street, site#P40-041146. The house at 215 Bride Street appears on both the 1965 and 1979 editions of the San Luis Obispo 7.5' quadrangle,but neither edition shows a second house in the area. A review of archaeological site location maps showed no recorded sites within a I km radius of the property. There are, however,unrecorded historical sites in the immodiate vicinity.the old Catholic Cemetery,the former Odd Fellows Cemetery(now San Luis Cemetery),and an abandoned mine shaft on the hill to the south. The nearest documented prehistoric site, CA-SLO-1427, is located at the eastern end of the same hill. about 2 km away(Singer 2002). Mission San Luis Obispo,site CA-SLO-64, is in the mid-city area about 1.5 km north of the property. In 1993, a records search was prepared for the entire City of San Luis Obispo by Central Coast Information Center at UCSB (Singer,Atwood and Frierman 1993). The records search included the subject property and indicated that it had not been examined for cultural resources. Since the UCSB document was now 10 years old the Information Center was contacted on August 15, 2003, and the record was updated; the 1993 conditions have not changed(M. Chatfield, personal communication 2003). Figure 2, the Assessor's Parcel Map, illustrates the subject property and its proximity to.Bridge Street and other properties. Figure 3 expands the picture and shows various features and structures P.O. Box 99 - Cambna • Callfornla 93429-0099 phone: 805/927-0455 • fax: 805/927.0414 t,+, i.i-,.t :cn �-n^:, 47 bnH rTrr. "•:, •,na 'OPT :<Hj DOGGU1263ONIS'U"D WO Page 2 within and near the surveyed arca, the entry road and drainage channel, the hillside with rock outcroppings, the house at 215 Bridge Street, the roadway climbing to the second house,and the exotic trees, grape vines and blackberry patch. The property has no barns,equipment sheds, or other structures except a small shed or large chicken house. The shed is close to a pair of old California Peppers and next to a functional AIRSTREAM trailer. Both houses on the property are currently occupied; the floodplain area has been disked it is not in cultivation. Hillsides are covered with grasses and sage brush. Tbree.areas arc distinguished: (1)the creek channel,(2) the floodplain, and(3)the hillside. No attempt was made to survey the creek channel and associated riparian habitat,but the bridge was examined. Very marrow and low,the one-car bridge of poured concrete,steel beams, and railroad ties, was likely(re)constructed within the past 20 years. Broken slabs of concrete on the creek banks attest to an earlier bridge. The willow clogged channel that now extends eastward for less than 1 km once carried annual runoff from slopes located cast of Terrace Hill, more than 3 km away. Until modern times the floodplain area was marshy and drained slowly. The present topography of the floodplain area suggests that part of it was raised by importing soil from another part of the property,along other fill containing assorted recent debris includurg pieces of conuxete, brick,glazed cerarrucs,bottle glass,etc. A thorough survey of the floodplain area yielded no prehistoric material of any kind and nhistoric mntenal clearly mote than 50 years old. At the southern edge of the floodplain,at the base of the slope, is a small wood-frame house. A simple, unadorned California bungalow built around 1920, the house has a low gabled roof, horizontal wood siding,a peripheral foundation,walkways, and front steps of poured concrete, a raised wood floor, double-hung sash windows, a small covered front porch with a single comer column, and a brick chimney. Surrounding the house area number of exotic trees and bushes including several small pines, an acacia,both grapes and blackberry vines,a lemon tree,and two California peppers. Older rose bushes were seen on three sides of the house while the fourth is thick with blackberry bushes. The house was measured,sketched, and then recorded as an historic property,P40-041146(cf. Figs. 3 and 4,and Attachment A). Floodplain areas located east and north of the house yielded no prehistoric materials of any kind. On the other hand,historic materials-- small pieces of ceramics, glass,wood,metal and plastic were present in small quantities scattered throughout. Soils observed in these areas were very similar,that is,silty to clayey loam with abundant small gravels of igneous and sedimentary materials, and some historic refuse. Floodplain areas are highly altered; current surface topography suggests extensive filling and grading in the past. After exiting Bridge Street, the entrance road runs southward,bridges the drainage channel, passes the little bungalow, and then turns east. It continues eastward for about 100 m then turns south and climbs the strep hillside eventually ending at a second small house. The second house is a one- story, wood-frame and stucco structure;the architectural style is California Eclectic Mediterranean. It has a poured concrete foundation, a raised floor,and a tiled roof with both flat and gabled sections. West of the house.is a separate,one-story, garage-shop-shed built in the same style: Both structures sit on a graded terrace and face north. The style, fixtures, and materials suggest that these structures were:erected around 1920, but neither is shown on the 1979 topographic map (cf. Fig. 1). Furthermore, the second house and garage-shop-shed are outside the proposed area of development which corresponds to the floodplain area and excludes the hillsides. Special attention was given to the hillside located south of the recorded house. P40-041146. The north facing slope is marked by large and small outcroppings of metavolcanic rocks.largely serpentinized basalt. Surface soils are very thin,dark brown and clayey; rock outcropping are Fri :cn cnn, Q' 'bnH ;nP : •ors '�:Hj DOSS 63ONtSIO'D WM Pagc 3 weathered dark green to brown or black, subangular to subrounded, and exfoliating. Neither the soils on the slope nor the rock outcrops themselves yielded any evidence of prehistoric or early historic modification, utilization,or occupation. A very preliminary plan submitted with the survey request indicates that development will take place Wong the access road, in the southern floodplain area, south of the blackberry patch, and in the hillside niche. The house on the hillside is not in the development area but the little bungalow is. Some implications of the plan are: (1)the complete removal of bungalow P40-041146 and nearby shed or chicken house;(2)substantial alteration of both floodplain and hillside niche areas; (3) enlargement and improvement of the access road; and(4)repplacement and enlargement of the existing bridge. Exactly what affects the development may Mc on the hillside house is still undetermined. Evaluation of impacts associated with future development considered potential affects on the 19208 bungalow, on hillside rock outcroppings and lithic resources, on riparian resources along the drainage channel, and subterranean archaeological resources (c.g.. old trash pits and filled privies). Impacts to the rock outcroppings and to other hillside resources should be minimal but should be considered carefully when final plans are developed Similarly,alterations to the drainage channel and it's vegetation will likely be minor and short term. The floodplain and niche areas will be altered completely but neither is likely to contain any buried resources. Finally,the development will eliminate historic property P40-041146,a simple, unadorned California Bungalow. At the present time, the supportuig research needed to document the ownership of the property and the construction of the house has not been undertaken. Presently, information ma be found that links the house, or property,to someone famous and important,or to some historical ventulot n t c ►histo ry of San Luis Obispo. But it has not happed yet. 'Consequently, the bungalow eet the minimum criteria for nomination to the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), although it may still have local significance in the City of San Luis Obispo. To conclude, an archaeological survey of the property failed to locate any prehistoric or early historic resources. One hoose ori the property, a small,wood-frame,undecorated California Bungalow built around 1920, was recorded as historical property,P40-041146; a second hoose, possibly more than SO years old but located outside the development area,was not recorded. Development of pan of the floodplain and the hillside niche will directly impact the historic bungalow and the surrounding landscape; these resources have been documented to mitigate the projected impact. Since buried resources are not expected in the areas eal archaeological development.invand the. eons riparian and hillside areas should not be adversely of g are not recommended. Most sincerely, Clay nger Ant . Si hropologist References Citcd Singer.Clay A. 1996 "Subject: Cultural resources survey and impact assessment for a Cellular One hilltop transmission facility in the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California'. Report prepared for Adrianne Patnaud,Tynan Group, Inc., San Luis Obispo. �.1 Ida' i :Cn Jnr'.' Q? '6nH rTr�,_ ��� .-t1a •��.� H., �OSSK9839N1S't1'D Wt Page 4 2000 "Archaeological Investigations at CA-SLO-1427: An Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Proposed Damon Garcia Sports Complex in the City of San Luis Obispo." Report prepared for David W. Foote, FIRMA, San Luis Obispo. 2001 "Subject: Cultural resources survey and impact assessment for a hilltop transmission facility in the City of San Luir Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California". Report prepared for Tricia Knight,JM Consulting Group,Inc., Goleta. Singer, Clay A.,John E. Atwood and Jay Frierman 1993 "It Came From Beneath The Streets: An Archaeological Report On The Expansion Of The City of San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment System". Report prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo. Attachments Figure 1. A portion of the USGS San Luis Obispo,Calif.,7.5' topographic quadrangle showing the property surveyed for cultural resources, APN 004-811-024. Figure 2. Part of the County Assessor's Map showing the property surveyed for cultural resources, APN 004-811.024(hashed area) Figure 3. Sketch of the surveyed area showing the house at 215 Bridge Street,historic property P40-041146, and other historic features. Figure 4. Sketch of the house at 215 Bridge Street, P40-041146. • Attachment A. Historic property record forms (DPR 323 J for the house at 215 Bridge Street; California Historic Property No. P40-041146 (4 pages). r WA' t :rn 7nr,' q? 'bnH ;na WD Page 5 .� •rt 8A .�. C 1 f SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. s ,rJVI : .''—T 35120-CB-rF-0241955 1 1_ FHOTOREv14E0 1978 s'L') •I W(f Rai* M �� I•' ��.�• DMA IBSa 1 SW—SERIES EBBS ) 1 .1 � r; to r'' led BIB 24 rA V, j , Act Mtaaon i I r• , db �� f -th �-.-_ +.,• `� r �`\ .../. � Dn.�•I.- -�' .r Tracer •. ' •veil 'I 1Atom 'Ilr1) ••.'�!�'�'•JQ�, Figure 1 . A portion of the USCS San Luis Obispo, Calif. , 7.5' topographic quadrangle showing the area surveyed for cultural resources, APN 004-811- 024 (shaded) . c,a LLQ-1 rn 47 '6nH rtrr-11'1; ';na : Ttt XH3 305SH82130tJI5'FI'O W08 r' Page 6 .. m u H a f- O y ccH Y u • © H O W u /. :IN u .. PQ nao i A N =:s 01 Y a• a • q • O ac y a 1 E 41 1 . a' 76 Y+o ra 1 7 a S r . V l � y T�t rn i F Q i t w N ---------- LLcc — r 40 � a ao w -,A 1.14Z r :rn rn; o� b.r+ r tr na •rrl =•Ha DOSSC82HvJNIS'F1': WO Page 7 l'/MINI Jt 9RIVR6 yTYiE�T 2 s•ro0.y PA -OT-G� 13j,LP slcs'rnern� ,J .wf Of= © P.Qa n�� ,`�� ♦IRM s O vt'C Po PPI N.fj �\ s�o Figure 3 (bottom) . Sketch map of the surveyed area (not to scale) . Figure 4 (top). Sketch of the California bungalow P40-041146. � Id.�.T :Sn rnr,, a,- 'e^H rThC+ '� ;�a 'Otl :Ha DOSSFi8213�JNLS F1 WOb ATTACHMENT A Stam of CalMomla—The Resources Agency Primary 41 P40 041146 DEPARTMENT OP PARKS AND RECREATION HRI I ` PRIMARY.RECORD Ttlmmlra NRNP Statue Code Other Listings � Date ' Review"Rwlew code Pape of-A- P1. Name ore: (Assignee by rsoorda) BRLDGE cTa rFr P1. Other Identifier: San Lu 'a.County •P2. Location: It Not for Publldatlon O ted Unraatdo and(P2b and Plc a Ped. Attach a Lavation Map ss neceseary.) _ Kot _K of BaC�f1( 8� •b. U80s7.51Ouad •e'AN X19 oIMEC Date M2 TISL RJL9 w A 9>4e c. Address at4- BCt(Dh!efe STR667- Clfy AAN d. UTM (Give mare tion one lot large andtor onem resoutceel Tons 10 : 7rt nate MVA.tI to TN e. Other Locatlortal Dots: (e.g..parcel e.dlrsctions to lescumt.elevation.ate..ss eDPheP East of Hwy 101 and Higuera St. , south of Bridge St. , north of Water Tank hill, •P3a. Description:(Oesonbe resource and Its major elements. Include design,matelots.oondlean,alterations,size.setting,and boundaries) A small rectangular bungalow (40'x28') built ea. 1920. Undecorated, 1 story wood-frame house with raised floor on concrete foundation with low gabled roof, clapboard siding, double-hung sash windows, a covered front porch with one tapering corner column, a brick chimney, concrete steps and pathways. Nearby trees are not particularly old but rose bushes next to house are. •P]b. Resource Attributes:(1-I11 attribwas and codes) HP2 4134. Resources Present: 08Wlding OSlrueture ODbleet OSite 001strict (3Elema PSb District D01 a ption ofP�Ia,L IftJ PSo. Photo or Drawin13 (Prato requead for buildings,structures.and objscts.) dat ,accession e) sCetch of house •Pa. Date constfaeted/Age and 8oumes: ■Nletadc OP��htatY��O �BoIA �] Retarded br. (Name, afaLathpn. qr&d cress) , oxCambria 4P9. Datc Reeecordedt 8 15 0 tas3 •Pig. eT?ei(Describe) �l b[A, l� U C! : U tural resources survey of oril. Report Cftauan:��n ���Y��„6tldother sources.at enter'none."1 •Altechonenb: • NONE 1111A= 11 MapZ4 MSketch Map Gconnnaanon Sheet f lluddmg, Structure. and Object Record DArchaeologrcal Record ODlstrict Record OLinear Feature Record OMHUng Station Record oRock Art Record DArdfaet Record OPhctograph Record O Other(List) •RaCulfee Information CPR 623A(1196) A,a lei,4r,i :-n rnm q? •ronH h T hn-."r ;nR : •0tJ '�H A OOSSU821301,1I S'U'0 WO State of Calliornle—The Resources Agency Primary a P40-041146- DEPARTMENT OFPARKS AND RECREA'nON . "RJR BUILDING,.STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT•RECORD Page 3 of ff– 'NRHP Statue Code 551 -Resource Name or9(Asalgnedbyrecorder) 215 Bridge Street v 81. Hlctorlc Name: . " 62. Common Name: 83. Original Uss: residence SFD 64. Present Use: cam '85. ArchlteeturelStyle: California Bungalow _ - '09. Conatruetlan History: (Conauucilon date•alterasone,and date of alterations) not investigated -- probably constructed ca. 1920 and maintained as a residence since then. 'BT. Moved? III[No ❑Yea ClUnknown Date: Original Location: '88. Related Features: none BBs. Architect: T h. Builder. 7 9870.919ntflcanae: Thome rural architecture Area central California Period of Significance early 20t Cent. prnpertyTypa single family Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance In terns of Nalomeal or architectural contsat as defined oy Ihama,period,and geographic soups. Also address Integrity.) Very simple farm residence on the edge of the city. Area undergoing change from agriculture co residential and conmercial as City expands. B11. Additional Resource Attributed:(List attributes and codes) '1912.References: (Sketch Map with north arrow required.) 813.Remarks: An unremarkable house •914. Evaluator: •A -SI t.k- -Date of Evaluallon: g 15 TO3 (This apace reserved for official comments.) N _ DPR a22e(1103) •Rectuirid Information F,i t.lrin.,:c n cnn? r4.7 •6 rW r t rn- ;nQ rlti •:H I "rOGGLIT f30N 1 S'U*D W08_ State of CalNomis—The Resources Agency Primary a P40-041146 OEPARTMEM OF PARKS AND RECREATION `):: HR11 LOCATION MAP Trinomial Page A ofaf* -Resource Name or ll (Afaignoo oy rocorosr) 215 Bridite Street 'Map Name: San Luis Obispo 'Seats! 1:24,000 •oateof Msp: 1979 .. ur SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. i s fee VI :( 35120-Ce.iF-024 ` rC r ( 19eee. a :rt(. . AG - I PHOTOREVISEO 1979 ' s I .� DMA 1094 18M-8ERIf?9 v890 Ass 18�11 1111 �09 ,TVI, °O 1 ".. 111► •; �\ ; n_, SIP _ '�•�',_, l^ -'y rr to 24 I ♦ _. / 1 was- 4 ll 11 • `� „ 5" r fai ` .t \t (L; �. 215 SRIDCE STREET :(NATYI toof 1huIN .• it /uh ". � �•` _- �. 11 ♦�`. DPR$?]J(i/93) *Required information nt,A i.i n- �"n rnn.- 6 + r?rn-. .' ;nR 'nrl :•:H� JOSSUT830NIS'U'0 1402. j r State cf CalMornla—The Reeourees Agency Primary e DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRIII SKETCH MAP Trinomial 215 Br ste Street Page. of " 'Resource Noma or a tAP°0^Od M f°a°bB'I 8/15/03 .Drawn 8y, C.A. Singer •D�ls; _ _ i I lP' nt - � 8alonE �rR6c:r PAP,K(NCcj 2 �'to0.r LOT P ��q�u4 'S HflFTMp.iTL EJ_Ff1 �9nVth ..`�.,i•-.�>��/�.i...,,'! .�.�^�'�.-r�`^'�..y�`���.�`M/'1 t1-'\���-/-inti K • Yiti E� W OE C7C) CQ "/� 0 vrc PPIM4� Sorra , �,' x NOTE:Include bar scale and north arrow. "Required InforMlItIOn DPR 623K(1/96) TT,i WAT,'7. �r•n, q, •6nH rtrn- " . •;nA -nil :=H-1 DOSSH128291,415 'H'D W02J NOV-04-2003 14:01 TBG ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 541 687 0625 P.02 kur A00000 November 4,2003 RECEIVED RED FILE DA.�ME ING AGENDA NOV NOV 2 E 2003 TEM #6 SLO CITY CLERK Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing to offer my most sincere support of the Bridge Street project I am a registered architect with a Masters degree in Architecture and a Bachelors degree in Urban Planning. I have been involved with sustainable design at a variety of levels ranging from residential, commercial and institutional projects to citywide nodal development. Though I currently live in Eugene, Oregon, my family and I have recently been making plans to move to the San Luis Obispo area. In researching the area, I read about the Bridge Street project from an article in the Tribune and immediately contacted the developers for more information. It is so refreshing in today's building climate to see a project that makes such great efforts to leave a small footprint on the land and our natural resources. The project's attention to energy, ecology and transportation is commendable. Recognizing our society's overdependence on non-renewable natural resources and our over use of those resources that are not allowed to replenish,this project exemplifies an alternative design paradigm that should be studied and emulated. I am optimistic that this type of project will be openly embraced by the Commission and that other developers will be encouraged to follow the project's basic design principles to ensure the future livability of the Central Coast Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, JIM DUFFY,AIA LEED AP TBG Architects& Planners/Inc 132 East Broadway Suite 200 Eugene, Oregon 97401 _ phone(541) 687-1010 COAL,CI!_ "CDD DIR fax (541) 687-0625 aCAO FIN DIR www.tbg-arch.com ACAO ?'FIRE CHIEF g 7Aii0RNE`! 2-p1;;' DIR SCLER'K ORIG LPOLICE CHF D)�T HEADS �?-R_C DIR V UTIL DIR y ? — 1;�/HR DIR TOTAL P.02 McMillan Study Guides 805-545-5956 11/04/09 10:16A P.001 RECEIVED W le I LLAN STUDY GUIDES RED FILE gLO CITY CLERK txc0AYaRArsa MEET NG AGENDA, November 3,2003 DATE�OTEM #1 COUNCIL TCDD DIR Phil Dunmore ZCAO FEIN DIR Planning Commission of SLO 2rACAO Z FIRE CHIEF 990 Palm Street ATTORNEY DPW DIR 21 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 CLERK ORIG e'POLICE CHF �D T,HEADS SEC DIR TIL DIR Dear Mr.Dunsmore, r- --•_( H R D R We arc writing to add our support for the Bridge Street Neighborhood Project at 215 Bridge Street. We own and operate a business at 265 South Street, Suite D., which is located very near the project. This is our sixth year in this location and we plan to remain at this site. We have experienced the same problem many other businesses have in recruiting employees in San Luis Obispo — a lack of affordable housing. The Bridge Street Neighborhood Project's commitment to sell 50% of the units at affordable rates caught our attention immediately. We are particularly enthusiastic about the possibility of such housing being located within walking distance of our workplace, as many of our employees currently must commute from surrounding communities to find affordable housing. We believe the Bridge Street Neighborhood Project will provide one viable solution to San Luis Obispo's current housing crisis. The fact that the Bridge Street Group is also committed to building an environmentally friendly development that will preserve visible open-space and wildlife habitats is of particular interest to our company's employees as most of us walk to Meadow Park daily on our breaks and pass by the area the development will impact. We applaud the group members for their sensitivity to the neighborhood and to the community. We encourage the Planning Commission to take all steps possible to not only facilitate, but to do all you can to actively eneourage,the Bridge Street Neighborhood Project. We need this project in our community as quickly as possible. Best regards, L R � P Gayle McMillan Smith Susan McMillan Fxnry President Vice-President McMillan Study Guides,Inc. McMillan Study Guides,Inc. - P.O. Box 1153 • SAN Lui%Obispo, CA 93406 FAX 805/945.5956 265 Sourfi STUTI, Sui7E D - San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 809/545-0117. • 800/821-13;38 11/26/2003 16:58 8316381880 GA+D:NORD (DI SANTO) PAGE 01 XT A California Central Coast Ch ptiECEIVED 11 i A Chapter of the American Institute of Architects �6� 2 �y 2003 President-Jeffrey Emrick,phone 549-8658,fax 549-8704,e-mail 'e=c CLERK President Elect-Desiree Peacock,phone 549-8658,fax 549-8704,a-mail Secretary-Allan Cooper,phone 756-1316,fax 756-1500,e-mail a-c-o-operAcalnolv_edu 0Treasurer-Lauren Luker,phone 541-6294,fax$41-2739,e-1ro,ai113(q?J}g as*c1 itoots-com Membership-Leonard Grant,phone 773-7113,fax 773-7115,e-mail l�lgarchitecture.com ji , Legislation-Vic Montgomery,phone 543-1794,fax 543-4609, e-mail vmontgomery desimcom Education-Paul Neel,phone 543-5979,fax 5442854,e-mail vpn ct er_net 4 Associates-Corbett Wulflng,phone 801-7003, e-mail 8058017003@u.airlxidee.net Students-Jared Kuykendall,phone 783-2247,e-mail jarc&wkendall@ o�c m November 26, 2003 City of San Luis Obispo . City Council 990 Palet Street RED FILE . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ME ING AGENDA DATE. ITEM # - RE: Comments on Draft Housing Element Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The California Central Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects has reviewed portions of the Draft Housing Element. The following comments found in this draft document are consistent with long-standing local and national AIA policies: 1. Use of sustainable and/or recycled materials, green building technology and water and energy conserving design should be required of new housing. 2. Encourage "live/work" and "live near work" housing. 3. Encourage innovative housing. 4. Encourage the provision of more affordable housing. 5. Prescrvation of compact urban form should be the highest priority. We would hope that you would support any pzojects'thatmeet these criteria even before the adoption of the Draft Housing Element_ Please do not hesitate contacting us if we can be of any further assistance to you in this important matter. Very Truly Yours, COUNC L —:f-CDD DIR AO ([iFIN DIR r ACAO IRE CHIEF Allan Cooper AIA, Secretary ( 'ATTORNEY 7pw DIR AIA.CCCC 'CLERK/ORIG ,POLICE CHF AE1T*E,41,DS ?'REC DIR REC DIR ��R DIR` cc: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission P.O.Box 5442 San Luis Obispo,California 93403-5442 Telephone 805.541.6294 A new 2 bedroom ii...ome for under $200,000 ill. jan Luis Obispo?? Yes, I am interested in: RECEIVED 9� 21 Being able to afford a home in San Luis Obispo. NOV 2-6 2003 -------_Z-Saving money-on-my--monthlywater-bilt,--–--------- SLO--CITY CLERK RK R1 Reducing my PG&E bill...possibly to zero. 2 Living in a neighborhood that provided pollution-free, electric vehicles to use for trips to the market or Video store. RED FILE ME ETJNG AGE vu DAT f coEITEM #I-Oq -7dT— o And yes, I am interested n. r;w'C DCtM (�COUNCIL' I e,- RJ CAO 2'FIN DIR 2 Homes that generate their own electricity. 2'ACAO t2?FIRE CHI A 2'ATTORNEY ;;-PW DIR Z LEAK0RiG a-OPOLic R1 Homes that produce their own heat.C1 El DEPT EAD PEC DIR ffb VLJTIIL re R RI Homes that produce their own hot water. 5= R S And I support a new housing project in San Luis Obispo that would: --.2 Provide homes that are both environmentally friendly and ecologically sensitive. 0 Provide homes that are energy-efficient. 0 Ensure long-term affordability for future owners, while providing equity for current owners. 0 Preserve existing wildlife habitats, vegetation and visible open-space. 21 Provide more vehicle and bicycle parking than required by city standards. 2 Provide built-in diversity of affordable and market-rate homes. 2 Sell 50% of the units at affordable rates, when the current city requirement is only 5%. 0 Be able to sell one, two and three-bedroom homes ranging from $170,000 to$225,000. 0 Provide award-winning architecture to the community of San Luis Obispo. The Bridge Street Group is a non-profit organization whose goal is to provide real solutions to our current housing crisis. To that end, the Bridge Street Neighborhood Project will provide 21 new owner-occupied housing units for sale to the residents of San Luis Obispo. YES, I support the Bridge Street Neighborhood Project at 215 Bridge Street, and I also support the Bridge Street Group in their efforts to provide affordable, sustainable housing to the residents of San Luis Obispo. Name Address Date You may fax this letter directly to 805.783.1881,or drop it by the SLO PlanDepartment,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 RECEIVED NOV 2 6 2003 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM slo CITY CLERK November 26, 2003 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Lee Price, City Clerk Via: Ken Hampian, CAO / Subject: December 2, 2003, Item A2, Council Liaison Subcommittee Assignments 2004 Council Member Ewan is next in rotation to serve as Chair of the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), therefore, we are submitting a revised draft of the Council Subcommittee Assignments for 2004 reflecting Council Member Ewan's appointment, once more, as the representative for this committee. In an effort to keep the assignments balanced, the Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) assignments have been adjusted as well. Council Members Ewan and Mulholland are in agreement with this change. A revised draft is attached for your consideration. ;?'COUNCIL 2-CDD DIR ,2-CAO FIN DIR RED FILE flACAO 2 FIRE CHIEF MEETING AGENDA .ATTORNEY P-PW DIR 5?TLERK/0RIG 2 POLICE CHF DATE ITEM #-& ❑ DgpT HEADS jZ�REC DIR j� Vflhun D, B UTIL DIR ��-- 2"HR DIR COUNCIL SUBCOMM.. TEE ASSIGNMENTS 2003-26. 4 Revised Draft CITY ADVISORY BODIES Interviews&makes 2003 2004 r recommendations for appointments to the full Council. Facilitates communication CHAIR MEMBER between Council and CHAIR MEMBER - - _committees. Architectural Review Commission Schwartz Mulholland Ewan Schwartz Bicycle Committee Ewan Schwartz Schwartz Mulholland Board of Appeals Settle Ewan Ewan Mulholland Cultural Heritage Committee Schwartz Mulholland Mulholland Ewan Housing Authority Romero Romero --- (Mayorby state mandate) Human Relations Commission Settle Schwartz Ewan Mulholland Jack House Committee Mulholland Settle Settle Romero Joint Recreational Use of School Settle Schwartz Settle Schwartz District Property Committee Mass Transportation Committee Mulholland Ewan Ewan Mulholland Parks & Recreation Commission Ewan Schwartz Settle Schwartz Personnel Board Settle Mulholland Settle Ewan Planning Commission Romero Mulholland Romero Settle Promotional Coordinating Settle Mulholland Mulholland Romero Committee Tree Committee Schwartz Ewan Ewan Mulholland COUNTY/REGIONAL 2003 2004 Serves as voting representative. REP. ALT. REP. ALT. Air Pollution Control District Ewan Mulholland MulhoHsnd Eagan (APCD) (ouarterly) Ewan Mulholland City Selection Committee Romero Mulholland Romero Schwartz (MayorlVice Mayor Alternate) (1-2 times per year) Zone 9 Advisory Committee Romero Mulholland Romero Ewan (Monthly) LAFCO (Appointments made by Co.) Settle Schwartz Settle Schwartz (Monthly) San Luis Obispo Council of Schwartz Romero Schwartz Romero Governments (SLOCOG) (Monthly) San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Schwartz Romero Schwartz Romero Authority(SLORTA) (Monthly) REVISED DRAFT REP. 2004 ALT. County Water Resources Adv. Mulholland Ewan Mulholland Settle Committee (Board of Supervisors) (Monthly) Economic Vitality Corporation Settle Mulholland Mulholland Settle (EVC) (Monthly) Whale Rock Commission (Mayor, Romero Mulholland Romero Schwartz Vice Mayor serves as a/temate) (June&as needed) No. County Water Forum (Monthly) Romero Moss/Henderson Schwartz Moss/Henderson Economic Opportunity Ewan Romero Ewan Settle Commission (Monthly) Integrated Waste Management Ewan Settle Ewan Mulholland Authority(IWMA) (Monthly) Mulholland Ewan CMC Citizens Advisory Mulholland Romero Mulholland Romero Committee (Monthy) 2 year term ends 12/04 Performing Arts Center Romero/ George Romero/ George Commission (Mayor/Vice Mayor Mulholland Schwartz as representatives) (Quarterly) PAC Facilities Standing Settle George Settle George Committee (Quarterly) PAC Administrative Settle Romero Settle Mulholland Subcommittee (as needed) PAC Program Subcommittee (as Mulholland Ewan Settle Mulholland needed) SPECIAL PURPOSE 2003 2004 SUBCOMMITTEES MEMBERS MEMBERS Serves as liaison representative. Mayor Advisory Body Chair Romero Rotation Romero Rotation Quarterly Meeting Downtown Association Board Schwartz Mulholland Mulholland Schwartz (Monthly) City/University Romero Rotation Romero Rotation (Mayor/Rotation) (Quarterly) Student Community Liaison Romero Rotation Romero Rotation Committee (Mayormotation) (Monthly) AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEES 2003 2004 Appointed by Council for a limited MEMBERS MEMBERS purpose North County Water Purveyors Ewan Moss Romero Moss Group (Monthly) G/301-05/2004/Council Subcommittee Assignments 2004 I Rick Hamlin and Stanley Fishfader 201 Bridge St. San Luis Obispo, CA RECEIVED NUV 2 6 2003 November 25, 2003 SLO CITY CLERK RED FILE MEETING AGENDA San Luis Obispo City CouBWE 1 p3 ITEM #ate Re: Bridge Street Project 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Council Members: As owners of property directly west of the proposed Bridge Street Project, we would like to express our concerns. Our primary concern involves the 60'wide, 320' long strip that, for many years, has provided access from Bridge Street to the main portion of the project site. This strip is situated between our M-zone property and the neighboring M-zone property to the east. Our property is used for heavy-steel fabrication. The operation employs about 50 people, produces high noise levels and anticipates operating double-shifts six or seven days per week. We question the reasonableness of rezoning the strip to R2 and the construction of eight homes on it(units 1 thru 8), sandwiched between M-zoned properties. The 2-3 story construction of units 1 thru 8 creates a line-of-sight exposure to manufacturing activities without any shielding, separation or buffer. Noise, bright lights,visual discord, dust, etc. are to be expected in M-zones. Additionally, manufacturing uses often involve hazardous substances and potentially dangerous materials and equipment; there always exists potential for release due to accident,fire,flood, etc., even when codes and regulations are followed. Furthermore, this part of town is known for regular strong winds blowing from west to east, that is, directly from our M-zone into the proposed residential units. The very close proximity of the proposed homes, sandwiched between M-zone properties, provides almost no degree of comfort or margin of safety in regards to the foregoing. We received noise complaints from occupants of the existing 1920's home on the project site in prior years (see map page 2), proposed units 1 thru 8 are much closer. Please review pages 3 and 4 which identify specific General Plan and Zoning issues applicable to the Bridge Street Project. In the best interest of the citizens of San Luis Obispo, their safety, health and welfare, we think that the subject land should continue to be developed Commercial-Industrial, in line with the General Plan's logical and well-defined boundaries, while recognizing the numerous benefits that local commercial and industrial businesses provide. Sincerely, , h d , ,Q COUNCIL -Q Q Did, ;CACAO _"TIFf �tc'}N'F£F Rick Hamlin and Stanley Fishfader 'r A77_0.R fElf -�Plwb l �LEF:I CR IG Z P0ihUE QIP Page 1 of 4 7-1, DE d riFADS Z—RE0 NA 9 —ti UsdJ6R.>J ZI-UTIL DIR BRI H STREET PROJECT- NOV. 25, 13 BRIDGE STREET 00 I twluut S I NINON' M 440 F'�BAILEY BRIDGE BUILDING 200')(80' m ED] 2 OPEN UNITS 44 ONE-BEDROOM WITH 0 K;ORCH W 2 00� X3 m LIVINGQUARTERS ONLEVELS;2&3 I L OUTDOOR WORK YARD WEST MANUFACTURING ZONE 5m EAST 6 UNITS 5-8 TWO-BEDROOM WITH 7 LIVING QUARTERS ON LEVELS 2&3 aM A4 A4 A4 Conservation EXISTING 1920'5 RESIDENCE-SOURCE OF PRIOR NOISE Open Space COMPLAINTS Conservation / Open Space PAGE 2 OF 4 BRIDGE STREET PROJECT—GENERAL PLAN ISSUES H 11.2.2: Consistency The City should not permit development of housing on a site if development conflicts with goals or policies of this Element,other General Plan Elements,or with other community goals.(p25,1.31.2) H 1113: New Development The City should prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved for open space or parks,or on sites subject to natural hazards or unacceptable manmade hazards.(p25,1.31.3) H 113.1: Regulations The City will adopt regulations to prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved as open space,and on sites subject to natural hazards like geological or flood hazards,or wild fire hazards.The City should also adopt regulations to prevent new housing development on sites subject to unacceptable levels of manmade hazards or nuisances,including severe soil contamination,airport noise or hazard,traffic noise or hazard,odors,or incompatible neighboring uses.(p26,1.31.5) OS 333: Open Space Designations The City should amend the Land Use Element and zoning map to designate all creek corridors as open space(excluding creeks that are paved or culverted).Designate undeveloped flood prone areas adjacent to creeks as open space,interim open space, or parkland where it would be costly for the City to provide flood control or where major creek alterations would be necessary to develop the site.Designate such easement or dedication areas(as enumerated in policy 3.2.3.A above)as open space.(p27,C) N 1.1.1: Noise Exposure Protection Protect people from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to noise.(p3,1) N 1.15: Prevent Incompatible Land Uses Prevent incompatible land uses from encroaching on existing or planned uses which are desired parts of the community,but which produce noise.(p3,5) N 1.2.9: New Development and Stationary Noise Sources New development of noise-sensitive land uses may be permitted only where location or design allow the development to meet the standards of Table 2,for existing stationary noise sources.(p5,6) N 13.2: Noise Studies Where a project may expose people to existing noise levels or projected build-out noise levels exceeding acceptable limits,the City shall require the applicant to provide a noise study early in the review process so that noise mitigation may be included in the project design.The City will maintain standards and procedures for the preparation of noise studies.(p9,2) S 4.1: Minimizing Hazardous Materials Exposure People's exposure to hazardous substances should be minimized. LU 211: Separation and Buffering Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible,nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing businesses,traffic arteries,the freeway,and the railroad. Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities. LU 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives Residential projects should provide: A)Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project; B)Adequate usable outdoor area,sheltered from noise and prevailing winds,and oriented to receive light and sunshine; 11)Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. Page 3 of 4 • i I BRIDGE STREET PROJECT-ZONING REGULATION ISSUES 17.62.045 Planned Developments/Decision and Findings B.Required findings for approval. 6. The location,size, site planning,building design features,and operating characteristics of the project are highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood,and will be compatible with the character of the site,and the land uses and development intended for the surrounding neighborhood by the General Plan; 8. The establishment, maintenance,or operation of the proposed project will not, in the circumstances of the particular case,be detrimental to the health,safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use,or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 17.08.120 Live/Work and Work/Live Units H.Required findings. The approval of live/work or work/live unit shall require that the review authority fust make all of the following findings...2.The establishment of live/work or work/live units will not conflict with nor inhibit industrial or commercial uses in the area where the project is proposed. Page 4 of 4 City Council Meeting 1212/03-Bridge Street Project t6,N IItO�IS�i� 2 ;. +. RECEIVED NUV z.6 2003 - RED FILE SLO CITY CLERK - MEETINGAGENDA lhk City Of San Luis Obispo DATE"'rt"f" ITEM # Planning Commission San Luis Obispo, California 93401 RE: John & Kay Semon Project...Bridge Street The purpose of this letter is to both compliment the Design Team for a 'project well designed'...as well as express my concerns regarding the compatibility of the project in harmony with the current (and foreseeable future) 'manufacturing' nature of the neighborhood. We operate Architectural Iron Works Inc. on the adjacent property at 201 Bridge Street...we manufacture what are considered by many to be the finest steel 'framed' doors and windows in the world. We employ about 45 people, work long hours and often six (and sometimes seven) days per week. As our company grows, we will continue to employ additional people, may wish to construct additional facilities and may work even longer hours (potentially double shifts). We moved our company here from Ojai, California about 16 months ago—and have very much enjoyed the forward thinking nature' of San Luis Obispo...and look forward to the continued growth of our company at 201 Bridge Street. As a result of our work...reasonable noise, reasonable traffic and again 'long hours'...we are concerned that we will be able to be good neighbors to an adjacent housing project... Even the most reasonable and tolerant people enjoy quiet at home...and given the proximity and nature of our business...believe that we will create an unpleasant situation for potential adjacent homeowners...which would result in an unpleasant situation for us. Accordingly, and in consideration of what I believe is a condition in your General Plan that requires that 'livetwork' projects do not interfere with the operation of existing businesses...we respectfully request that you consider...that although well designed and dearly of both benefit and need to the community...this project simply may not be properly sited...on, adjacent to and in between property that is zoned for manufacturing. Respectfully Submitted, 72r-AT-TORNEY/ � FINS Q1 / FIRE-QkU1iEE ^v"l y I L�l� 2 pwQI r..Jim Miller C'p-®6i^tFE NFEl ,�a R<@ UA$UTIL Dlt�XJ HR DIR _ RECEIVED _ NUV 2 F 1003 Date: November 26, 2003 To: San Luis Obispo City Council Members SLO CITY CLERK From: Helene Finger, Registered Civil Engineer Subject: 215 Bridge St., December 2, 2003 City Council meeting Public Hearing Item#4 I am neither for nor against the proposed project at 215 Bridge St., but as a Civil Engineer I am concerned that staff,continues to fail to correctly describe the General Plan Land Use designation for this parcel and that staff has failed to identify that this project is in violation of General Plan policies, environmental impact requirements and other city policies. 1. The Planning Commission was never informed that this project is in violation of General Plan, Land Use Element,July 2002, Section 6.2.3, Parcels Crossing the Limit Lines. • This parcel crosses the development limit line and Section 6.2.3 states, "Before development occurs on any parcel which crosses the urban reserve or development limit lines,the part outside the lines shall be protected as permanent open space." The Planning Commission recommendation does not protect as permanent open space as required by the General Plan the section of this parcel outside the development limit line. 2. The entire parcel is designated Open Space by the currently approved General Plan and Zoning regulations, but staff has never communicated this fact. • The current General Plan Land Use Element and map which was adopted August 23, C, 1994 defines the land use for the entire property as Open Space. (LUE 6.2.1, 6.2.6). • The location of the 1994 Open Space boundary/development limit line as the property line was confirmed at the August 15, 1995 City Council meeting by Resolution No. 8453. The staff report for this resolution specifically identified the"Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation: Open Space". Furthermore,this document states,"With this proposal, there would be no change to the Land Use Map designation of Open Space, or the zoning which is Conservation/Open Space". (See Attachment 1: 8/15/95 City Council Meeting Minutes and Staff Report). • There have been no citywide or parcel specific amendments to the Land Use Element since then that have changed the Land Use designation for this parcel. • The Land Use Designation of Open Space for this entire property is almost 20 years old, as established by the Hillside Planning Program—Phase IL adopted on October 9, 1984 by City Council resolution#5487. (See Attachment 2: HPP General Plan Land Use Map) 3. An Environmental Impact Report is required for this project. • The Environmental Checklist Form ER#64-03 and corresponding Mitigation Measures required work/live units to declare a mitigated negative declaration. Without these units several sections of the ER are invalid and a negative declare ' n t be declared �C-TCDD DIR CAO RED FILE 42-FIN DIR �ACAo .2 FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY M ING AGENDA LeRw - POO LICE ORla .ZPCE DEPT 2 CHF ITEM DA #, FADS ,I�REC DIR iR R DI H �HR DIR • The location of this project within a GP defined hillside planning area requires "carefully chosen development limit lines and special design standards...to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources...and public health and safety problems". LUE 6.2.1 Slopes consist of serpentine rocks, likely to contain rare or threatened plant species. An EIR is required to determine the"special design standards" required to protect this area. • "Subdivision approval in hillside planning areas will include designation of"sensitive sites,". LUE 6.3.1 Drainage on north side of access is good quality wildlife habitat. Natural Resource staff supports protection of this feature. An EIR is required to determine and protect the"sensitive sites" located in this subdivision. • The project proposes creating a new public ingress point(a 5'6" wide bicycle path) to the city owned open space. An EIR is required to evaluate how this trail will impact the conservation plan that is being prepared for the South Hills Open Space in accordance with the GP Conservation and Open Space Element. • The project will create significant alterations to a floodplain that must be evaluated by an EIR. The preliminary flood impact analysis states, "The project site is partially located in Flood Zone AO(2' depth)". The new structures "impose significant impact upon floodwater flows". "This translates to a net increase in the base flood elevation of approximately 0.9 feet [11 inches]". • The project will create traffic circulation concerns including ingress/egress to Higuera and South streets that have not been addressed at all and must be evaluated by an EIR. • Noise issues are potentially significant and the original mitigation measures have been removed without adding adequate alternate mitigation measures. 4. The current project status is conceptual,constantly changing and not ready for final City Council approval • The track map shows 2 garages and one retaining wall constructed above the Planning Commission recommended 185' development limit line. See Attachment 3. • The removal of work/live units from the project causes the N itigated Negative Declaration to be invalid. A new Environmental Review or an EIR must be issued and time allowed for a public review/comment period. • The project is under-parked- a. The project does not commit to providing electric vehicles,yet claims credit for 5 "NEV/electric car vehicle"parking spaces. b. The project claims credit for 8 tandem parking spots c. The project claims credit for 2 motorcycle parking spots o .There is no room for the proposed drainage basin and it is not shown on any drawings. Location of the basin above 195' elevation as proposed would result in significant impact on the hillside. • The project only commits to providing 5% affordable housing or 2 units, but the City's C' Planned Development zoning regulations 17.62.045 require a minimum of 25% affordable housing. • The project does not commit to the required 30%greater energy efficiency that is required in the City's Planned Development zoning regulations 17.62.045. • The proposed City Council resolution, Section 2, Item 18 is in error by requiring"a noise disclosure shall be recorded on the deeds for lots 14", when the Planning Commission recommendation specified, "A maximum potential noise disclosure shall be recorded on the deeds for lots 1-8". 5. The Planning Commission and the City Council have not been informed of the numerous violations of General Plan policies created by this project. For example: • General Plan,Land Use Element, Section 6.1.3, Open Space Land Divisions. This entire parcel is in Open Space and Section 6.1.3 states,"Parcels within Open Space areas should not be further divided". This project would subdivide the one parcel into 22 lots. • General Plan,Land Use Element, Section 6.1.2,Open Space Uses. This entire parcel is in Open Space and Section 6.1.2 states, "Lands designated Open Space should be used for purposes which do not need urban services, major structures, or extensive land form changes". This project would include urban services, major structures and extensive land form changes including buildings,parking, roads and bridges. • General Plan,Land Use Element, Section 2.2.2, Separation and Buffering states, "Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible,nonresidential activities,including most commercial and manufacturing businesses". Lots 1-18 are very close to manufacturing property(Lots 1-8 & 18 are within 10 feet of manufacturing and lots 9-17 are within 25 feet)without any buffering. See Attachment 4. • City Council Meeting Attachment 1 Tuesday, August 15, 1995 -7:00 p.m. Mayor Settle opened the public hearing. Dana Shaheen,the applicant, said that he had addressed concerns expressed by his neighbors and that the construction was not building of sets, but small technical props. Jenny Shaheen, wife of the applicant, told Council that they were asking to continue to do what they had been doing for the past three years and that construction was limited to small set pieces. Julianna Winninghoff, 464 Jeffrey, supported the Shaheen's home occupation. Marge Castle, Los Osos, supported the Shaheen's business. Mayor Settle closed the public hearing. After discussion, moved by Romero/Smith to adopt Resolution No. 8451 upholding the appeal as amended to add "or screened structure" to Condition #2, to strike "12" from Condition #14 and replace with"36,"and to add Condition#15 prohibiting exterior spray painting; motion carried(5-0). 3. GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT- SINSHEIMER PARK (File No. 463) Council held a public hearing to consider a General Pian Land Use Element map amendment to show about two acres at the southwest edge of Sinsheimer Park (900 Southwood Drive) as Park rather than Open Space (GP 55-95); San Luis Coastal Unified School District, owner. Arnold Jonas. Community Development Director,said the designation was being changed so that active recreation could take place at this location. Mayor Settle opened the public hearing. French Morgan said he lived at the bottom comer of Del Campo in probably the closest single- family residence to the project and was in favor of this proposal but had concerns about children in the vicinity of the tracks. After discussion, moved by Williams/Romero to adopt Resolution No. 8452 approving a negative declaration of environment impact and adopting the amendment; motion carried (5-0). 4. GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT- BRIDGE STREET(File No. 463) Council held a public hearing to consider a General Plan Land Use Element map amendment to move the development limit line to the base of the'South Street Hills on a parcel at 271 Bridge Street; John J. & Henrietta Lucas, owners (property in escrow to another party). Arnold Jonas. Community Development Director, summarized the agenda report Mayor Settle opened the public hearing. No one spoke to the issue. After discussion, moved by RomerolSmith to adopt Resolution No. 8453 approving a negative declaration of environment impact and adopting the amendment; motion carried (5-0). O COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications. CITY OF SAN LUIS UBxaf'U Attachment 1 PLANNING COMMSSION STAFF REPORT BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: June 28, 1995 FILE NUMBER: 57-95 PROJECT ADDRESS: 271 Bridge Street SUBJECT: General Plan Land Use Element amendment to move the hillside planning development limit line, in the western part of the South Street Hills. RECONEM[ENDATION (1) Review the initial environmental study and concur with the negative declaration; (2) recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment. BACKGROUND Situation The Planning Commission initiated consideration of this amendment at staffs request. Staff suggested the change to accommodate reasonable use of the parcel in case the existing houses were destroyed, and to make the development limit line location consistent with neighboring properties. The:General Plan,provisions.applying to this site result from'the Hillside.Planning i� Program:;which .was added to the Land Use-Element is:1983; and included largely unchanged in the 1994 update of that element. Data Summary Owners: John J. & Henrietta Lucas (property is in escrow to another party) Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation: Open Space Existing and Proposed Zoning: Conservation/Open Space with 5-acre minimum (C/.OS-5) Environmental Status: Negative declaration approved by Director for review and comment May 30, 1995. Project Action Deadline: Legislative action not subject to processing deadline. Site Description The subject site is a 7.3-acre parcel extending from the flat area and creek near Bridge Street about halfway to the ridge of the western South Street Hills. Two houses with outbuildings and yards occupy small parts of the site, one at the base of the hill and the other at about 235 feet elevation, which is reached by a steep driveway. The attached initial environmental study provides more information on slopes, soils, and vegetation. - - Project Description TtieCieaeral.Plaii:Hfllside_F!lanning.Map'development.limit line would be moved from this site's northern boundary to approximately the 175-foot elevation contour (attache nap): According Planning Commission .ti iteport ` ' Attachment 1 to the Land Use Element, the urban reserve line is the outer limit to urban development and provision of City services. For hills within the urban area, the development limit line serves the same function. In hillside areas, the development limit line is typically the boundary between residential or commercial designations and open space designations. Criteria for locating the development limit line include water service elevation, steepness of slope, access, slope stability, fire hazard, sensitive plant communities, and visual impacts. In this area, the 175-foot elevation closely follows the change from nearly flat to steeply sloping ground. The hillside development limit line is shown on a set of large maps which are published separately from the rest of the Land Use Element. These maps, at a scale of 1 inch equals 200 feet, are overlays of 1974 aerial photographs and topographic drawings. (The attached map is based on a tracing of the original Hillside Planning Map, which cannot be photocopied legibly due to its darkness. The original map is on file and available for viewing in the Community Development Department.) With the adopted line, neither of the existing houses could be rebuilt if destroyed, and City water and sewer service cannot be provided to the property. The amendment would allow City permit approval for a replacement dwelling in the flat area at the base of the hill if both of the existing dwellings on this site were destroyed. It would also allow provision of City water and sewer service to the existing house or a replacement house in the flat area at the base of the hill. With either the adopted or proposed development limit line, both existing houses can be maintained indefinitely. With this proposal, there would be no change to the Land Use Map designation of Open Space, or the zoning, which is Conservation/Open Space with 5-acre minimum for a dwelling(C/OS-5). The amendment would not allow any development in addition to that existing on the site. It would-not allow subdivision of the site. The owner recently obtained a building permit to relocate a carport and add 150 square-feet of living space to the upper dwelling. These actions could be approved without public hearings under the existing development limit line and the Zoning Regulations' provision concerning nonconforming structures. No further development is proposed. As part of this amendment, the map depiction of the development limit line along the west end of Woodbridge Drive would be changed, so that it follows the southern (hillside) side of the existing street rather than the developed side. EVALUATION The change does not raise any substantial issues of consistency with text policies. Relevant text policies of the Land Use Element are 6.2.0 through 6.2.4 (pages 61 and 62). Open Space Element Chapter A (pages 13 through 16) is also relevant. O Page 2 1 Planning Commission Stan Report OP 57-95 At 1 ALTERNATIVES The Commission may recommend denial. The Commission may recommend approval of a different location for the development limit line. Any different location should be consistent with the General Plan text policies concerning hillside protection. A substantially different location would require additional environmental review and public notice before further Commission action. The Commission may continue action. ATTACEMENTS Map #. 1: Land Use Element Map (part)showing vicinity of proposed change Map # 2: Zone Map showing site and nearby development Map # 3: Hillside Planning Map (part) showing existing and proposed development limit line locations and selected physical features Initial environmental study sxncsnu..Pcx Page 3 ' 1 ' BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT LIMIT LINE AivIENDMENT MAP #, LAND USE ELEMENT MAP (PART) /\N, I NORTH 1 INCH = 1000 FEET AREA UNDER CONSIDERATION PARCEL BOUNDARY Attachment \\\\\ \, :\.\\\x-\\ \v\ \-ate: i\\ '\}\ \� ♦\•\ NNNN '- I/Y .•.a � 6 \\\\\\\\\1 ]'>{��M}i,,:��:�.,i��tK'S�.g11'i1uq��Vi�::i`�•`.;i::':..... \\\\\\ \�\� \\\\\\\\\\ k;.'!tt• ."•riilyt:eiii::•:i'i:i;::;?:»:• \\\\\\ w \'`t\l\\\ �jf�+�"�..:.li!.:i' !j•^::.:, ;�ii::;i;:'iiM.� _ MAP #. BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT LIMIT LINE AMENDM Attachment I ZONE MAP (PART) Z- = 1 -1 NORTH 1 INCH = 200 FEET/J l�ylp11({,��I uI . ® ' rra tr-•T. -•�L^T.rlr �-.. e�'�:�s9!�PDS ?S LAw�e,1 7xr a'•..: 1 p: 2,O. a0 •f7•K"r ¢�..�--+•�.R.� - SCP ;. '�: �«�. -. Syy i fvKTO3sf MC•O3II� TRAGTCS'1. u� `a' a .'.,r•i. '�y'�a•} 'rsi•VV■ X 97 Ag Y r•4 C r *►'•� w y •'• t< < r— ,' n `"ekx,4r. ,..E Y s� L' .TRACT GS4 •"�...' WiO` a `.. « w :ti. .N • T..• '�-T / "Jr •• �sfl e. 1:,a1 +✓,_ v .TAY' a } •Rf•fw+cY :s r^ .�. A Y .}}+r al`:- P ti"..#. r.%F• ar. S i .+al: ..t Zs�y-•!"' j• a TlNn••> mit N `4 .�'. ;{......l<{' 1 ti u•. ti+� A[L G!-Glwi _ � � ..e �' / r _ x--t'•,a~ ^C7'!{ rr....T e s eo�`re{ IOnL.T.V'.i- � •11•L� ~ si .74 a -J S.! s •"a !�.Sh l..1T M^ '(� = `rte +. ` •� "6 I • '�• � •: ~ Ru rr''YaT.if�. ['-1 T'a• �' K � Y[0{M4 - :. v 'Sl-.r' r }: Twit i�'y "• �.R: ~ ��-• •�'n•J�� m A .'.F;.. A!/-N -.�...• 270 's a a .,. {¢{e» ( OI -...-.L'1+0,;L'?'.+� ;:•Ct r'L°.Y c_. ..'�_.«SfSw.Aai•� ^h r HO ApORCFl� = �"BRICG.E'4v STREET : 7-61 - -�:_• ',-� �� ,s�.c-�- :„ . . L- G_/05.-4 C AIRO-61 w•f N ATyi {R{111 A1n !e •/ +� enS+Mi 44�'� - .ee:eo-fze �, e c 1: „ ¢ �//•: wN-1{. : ".t'.`y ..t /C{IJiO'SfiO !' as rr-',i•=-• T l 1� �• !:�. .FY..�. - All S Y '•G+� a RR��__ll 4 Mw :V2 Slb 77 ' _,{,�{S{���.•� r -r� .s µkw ���!✓t'P ._' rIla . jr - •J }� , � S.. ��•. _, �.r -.mtf/.rf.,E^•`a, 'S. Za _O q� a n. • �t , 0 S ,•, T :.C. l'.Y.ti."•sc� �:oy y j - a `f may. (�, �',j �1{, �, p�1•-1 ..A,O''/S••� a .a[. � '[f s�`�'.e: ��i`'�-e' �`'-l..r r� v T .f.ti• r `.Ir: � •i ray�V•• ..0.- w r'tyy t'f s' � � �{"wG�Y�. K•r ' � ��' } � r i .!'�y Wy��"��t' ✓=�. r F r ` i s yq' •F.-.r_ ,r w•L�r y-.( 't.�^',y, 6C7y `� 1_1. e Y n f ".,� wtom^ 0 S -. 40 -SP G %=0 S C%OS - 5 a _ 40 : . tq , w dw Q 1 > 9 •f Y, 17:i`r�•.�.'.�. �j��'' -.� .a"�t�'iL.. ' moi• - .F'.yl -a; V aryy f.� iT '(3YIaw vK • �r Y - V< R• ,Y Y ( w• V 3 �ry� t•. L xT-K 'aj-n v BRIDGE STREET-^f •ELOPMENT LIMIT LINE./ `I DMENT HILLSIDE PLANNING MAP (PART) Attachment I tt � m a _ a RE M=:0 Z I I Q i i '•per ( �o� Co��.\ 01,` O p O •I a s o � I .uM Q L3U;LQky (�dT At,L SHvw?-+� . -` 1Sp-� ��-�1►ATLv1v Gvl+�"rsv�L Ct.so-r a-tx. SHowN� as �X l~C t_tN� Ctaorr �t-L� St1owN� o IST7n+C� �isyst..vPj,.t1xN�' LIMIT LINA." MORTt� , G'+RAP P•oo6.a vPC r�P.D I. INC." oopco Pf?.OPo58p �PEvELoPMEt►sf LIMIT L11►tE �� 200 _ li I II� II `�•:�� : �� �: � ���� II���III� il�llllll� Imo::•-....7 ••• ::�)r���.':.:. .'J [: 11- ��II�''I� IIIII101 I,,II,I� • :� _ •.-y � �Y r I�III ��IIIII ,III�I►. �� �z IIS e >� - •... f ••ice• �•••�J '{,r„ I ;1:A•.�:lhiJ ' I ttH+Fiil ^Y•i•:i•• - �••.f i�%its .+.. ' r b!:.J•••• ryp/�-/� i 1:J/ �0.!i i�i+'�-} O•s''':+'':`^c:iiccricFri'ici: 'r" :n ,i{J*".r- !•'J•Y•�• a.i. rJ �•• • � A�• ••�_iiii_i?i?�:'fr iE`:i `;'i'•?"?-:rid - �'•. •••• • �••l-r:di .- 'dddidddd::::i,`Sv'_�''� i•:'••••� •%••: s•O:� •irCJ .�• .•.�...i:i::::idi�:•..:.....:� .•�:•-.:::� • .�J.riJSIJ• �•j•i•�.- - ''rfrtom.^�97 Y!'-�F .y�7 ti„ 'ti' i• r•�'•94 0.' •�•• i••• •i•:�•• �_ J�•J01 J •:• ii••i i:!i••i J � • � I• V•J limp F � :-i - • • • 1 • 11 ffl,i 59999i5fitl55355154S5i{ �� 6 4 ! ` N !! i=�-. :l �Mull, 6 .{'t@ �. I' •f uI♦ a �� ��� ;f � BB� o !— � �; le t111Qt1Q11Htlllllltl ° t � � _ � QQ !! l441pi4�4�f11!llp�ilis tp! { yB� o ,,° . ' I � ` / aaaSYlBiSiSi»5i5B5Yi5 ! (e ■ 1 a Q - ' ss• ((IIQ(�{�{�Ce• ESI teeo:axas.saB BB [� B IBe m ~ • ; i�s li §! a 15{ tfEBi��4594459451954159S9S14S i� S i t� i! Bf BQE Irl7sil; { !e{${ ;tQ f t �� ^ IjI 9f 91,le Nal 6ii9 { 1�� S 8111.�{ .r�,'; I � §!9_•' � � � Iii � �19 ��� i g i!$= ii 5 i — CSX�t �.- -�- I• -' . .�'�XI 1 1 ' I I ' I Y I I I ' O O Attachment 4 CL 0 O co co r J /AJ NCD . �I � � v' e5 5 f.'�\� "T� 3 lsf qV„�3�• °��"T 7'4 .- i+ O t`<ssi` trr>• a �era' k-�k.' F r.`<i.2 J19xs bevy s O •+W u Ce) s__Srcc,`-m��`StF �S�g47•�,zilr4 ,3S i'dµTco /��, �i/t£:' � Rr '�C� '4 llRs+r,t� }'! i 5 (��:�iiY4iblk� ���h\5{h$.✓�. 4r+�3 FI Y4�Y� a i�SS14�+r R P.• �y ^/'l Y b r.R sl' 3�` 15E i4'`� .tvvJ t..:, !� �v`€s �'�}� •S ,"y<NS52p�'�r' "fit `:�]{� ^ ��3r"�.�_"'m` .✓. „,CL �4 ��+5+3N•\fn.v xZM}� sf!r� ■� >';i ! � - r �a�TMx A �>�\o Z �'M �pys( � nva4, �'S n�.•5.���t U 4 a n�Kw x7 1t1�„cxtP yy"tv 7y^.r°,��xll. •, a\} �NY tk N( r•';' ! � ^�'3 aG• >anrt yY »e 4 'S 4t fi7t v a 41.•s }(c:.,tL ,$ ppP ZNv2 N f M1F u. "IM }' 1{,y.-e O � '}i\ i•YN 1,.. 'F{+'� x�',�'.�Sr"ai`Y � Y l 4"�}u' Yr'9- 'u 'k!�l ,t ��))*�,1�.�.. �r v trt F (�� ! S,. frY 1r L(�w { 1� +•$,- �T a� � fig tS}{2�-, !., {^ •\�,S w Avr i,Y J wa iri} � �v rt� v: t r h rp g ■ � if! � �fi^,y\},k� Wi,�. al}," }�'a fico �,�f3 Z {h \F� !f `y`Rr '�� �`n?+. , t/1.*',�' r,y � r. a, r�btro ',F^lh•a qryµh+ .i�et' O •— N O C � Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED Julie O'Connor - 12/2/03 Agenda -- Item 4, 21S Bridge Street 0C 1 2003 SLO CITY CLERK From: <ANCARTER@aol.com> To: <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org> Date: 12/1/03 1:45 PM Subject: 12/2/03 Agenda -- Item 4, 215 Bridge Street CC: <Iprice@slocity.org>, <khampian@slocity.org> Dear Council Members: i E'COUNCIL ,QCDD DIR 7CAO . FIN DIR I wholeheartedly support the applicant's request and the 6-1 PC �O'ACAO ZFIRE CHIEF recommendation. 2A7TORNEY DPW DIR J2rCLERK/0RIG 21POILICE CHF Given our current housing shortage, I believe the City gains whenever ❑ DEPT HEADS 2-REC DIR commercial property is converted to residential. This is particularly true when we ' TIL DIR are talking about owner-occupied affordable housing. This is true in even "marginal" areas. (By this I mean a street which is primarily commercial.) The General Plan is normally seen as the City's controlling document, not the Zoning Map, particularly a Zoning Map which seems to be in error. This should be the standard here. The PC has determined that the current 175' development limit line is "arbitrary," whereas the proposed 185' limit line is "more reasonable and appropriate." There is substantial development nearby, off Exposition Drive, above 200'. The easements that will take place below 175' make up for the development to occur between 175' and 185'. There will be no net loss of open space. Both ECOSLO and the Sierra Club support this no-net-loss approach. LUE 6.2.0 and 6.2.1 are adequately met. In return, the City gains 12 owner-occupied units -- 50% of the development! No other private developer of any recent project in town has come close to this percentage. RED FILE I have seen mockups of the development, and the South.Hills viewshed is not - M ING AGENDA significantly impacted. (To put things in context, let's remember the DAT JZ31TEM DA communications tower eyesore above the project.) The noise issues for units 1-8 are adequately addressed -- heavy duty insulation and notice to prospective home owners. Having just installed double-pane windows and blow-in insulation in my 1960 stucco house, I can personally attest to the sound-muffling benefits of just normal insulation. I think many families who cannot currently afford a home in SLO will jump at the chance to buy an affordable one, even if that includes a "marginal" location (commercial street + potential noise). The drainage issues seem to be adequately addressed. The required hydrology study will make sure this is true. The project meets and exceeds the City's parking standards. Unless City Council is prepared to change these standards citywide, the applicant should not be penalized for existing problems on Bridge Street and Exposition Drive. That file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}OOOOI.HTM 12/1/03 - Page 2 of 2 existing problem is caused by commercial development, not residential. By the way, the solution for the Exposition Drive problem is creation of a 14 residential parking district. Andrew Carter file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW)00001.HTM 12/1/03 Allen Settle-215 Bridge Street Page 1 From: <Cindrichl @aol.com> To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmulholl@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org> Date: Sun, Nov 30, 2003 10:22 PM Subject: 215 Bridge Street Dear City Council Members: The following attachments are being sent regarding the proposed project at 215 Bridge Street. RECEIVED Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Gina Cindrich DEC U ` 2003 SLO CITY CLERK RED FILE Cn..�.D DD ING AGENDA ICAO FIN DDI TE4& MI ITEM # JlYACAO FIRE CHIEF DA i ATTORNEY E5PW DIR 7CL.RK ORIG ✓:.POLICE CHF iDD�PT HEADS CRECDIR ,?'U T IL DiR L� San Luis Obispo City Council Members 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 November 26, 2003 Dear City Council Members, Romero,Mulholland,Settle,Schwartz and Ewan: As a lifelong resident of San Luis Obispo I am keenly aware of the need for affordable housing in our beautiful city. I had hoped that the proposed development at 215 Bridge Street could provide some relief to that need. According to the applicant, the project being propounded is the solution to many of the housing problems facing San Luis Obispo. A cursory evaluation of this project would support these claims. However, a more thorough examination of the project reveals a proposed social experiment with many good intentions, but because of the location chosen for this project there are many significant issues and cause for concern. My personal concerns about this project include the rezoning of precious open space to R2, land use compatibility, flooding, parking; traffic,circulation, the number of units proposed, along with the increased noise from building 20-plus units in a canyon setting just to name a few. I could state my concerns for each issue and argue them with quotes from the General Plan Digest as to how this project is not fitting with the goals set forth for San Luis Obispo, but will limit my focus upon the issue that concerns me the most, the issue of flooding. We have all heard the cliche, "You can't fool mother nature." This quote is especially true when building in a known flood plain. Common sense would suggest that this is not a wise idea, and the wisdom of such common sense is woven throughout the General Plan Digest. In the attached document I will explain my concerns for why the threat of flooding in the project is very real and will cite quotes from the General Plan Digest in support of my argument. I thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter and ask that you please continue this matter until additional information about this project can be provided by the applicant in response to these issues, as well as others brought forward from the community. Sincerely, Gina Cindrich Attachment from George Sabo S 1.1 Flood Hazard Avoidance and Reduction and LU 6.4.3 Flood Hazard Reduction A. The City will develop and carry out environmentally sensitive programs to reduce or eliminate the potential flooding in previously developed,flood prone areas of the city. This project DOES NOT reduce or eliminate the potential flooding in the previously developed area that is part of a flood prone area. This project would INCREASE the potential for flooding in this area. D. Within predominantly developed areas(such as downtown) infill, remodel and replacement projects should not displace more floodwater than previous structures on the site or in the vicinity. Commercial buildings may be flood proofed where providing floor levels above the 100-year storm flow is not appropriate due to adjacent improvements. New infill buildings may be required to have greater setbacks than their older neighbors. This project proposes to build in a zoned flood plain. This will not only place the residents of this project at risk for flooding, but will increase the risk of flooding in the entire Meadow Park area. The increased water runoff created by covering the naturally absorbent soil with concrete, sound mitigating walls and other materials (even those used to minimize water absorption issues) will potentially increase the flood risk for the entire area. An EIR should be required to assess the appropriateness of this location for this project. LU 6.4.3 Flood Hazard Reduction E. Within new development areas such as the potential expansion area shown in flgure 2, substantial displacement of floodwaters should be avoided by: 1). Keeping a substantial amount of flood prone land in the vicinity as open space; 2). Enlarging manmade bottlenecks, such as culverts, which contribute to flood waters backing up from them; 1). This project should be scaled down to allow for the substantial amount of flood prone land in the vicinity to be kept as open space. 2). The manmade culvert to be utilized by this project should be enlarged in order to accommodate the addition waters diverted, as not to increase the risk for flooding. OS 7.1.1 Preserve Hazard Areas Direct urban growth away from areas subject to hazards and preserve hazard areas as open space or parkland. This property is already designated open space and maintaining that designation is consistent with the General Plan. OS 7.2.1 Hazard Mitigation A. Development shall avoid or adequately mitigate hazards. This project does not avoid the flooding hazard and would actually contribute to an increased risk of flooding to the area. French drains, apple orchards and carports do not seem adequate to mitigate the risk of flooding. An assessment by a geologist to determine the extent of the drainage from the gully to lots 20 and 21 should be required. An EIR also seems of value in addressing this issue. B. Development shall not increase hazards on other properties in the area. For the reasons previously stated, this project will increase the hazards to other properties in the area. Having lived in our home for eight years now, I have seen the water rise almost each year to a threatening level. Our home sits approximately five feet higher than the property where the proposed project would be built, placing it at an even greater risk for flooding. Additional concerns: This project is being promoted as an affordable housing project. The fact that this property sits in a flood plain could reduce the affordability aspect. The property at 215 Bridge Street is considered to be a 100-year floodplain. According to FEMA (The Federal Emergency Management Agency, http://www.fema.gov/fhm/fq_nd0l.shtm)this property has a 63.5% chance of flooding during a 100-year period. This equates to a 26% chance of flooding during the life of an average 30-year mortgage. This means homes in such an area are five-times more likely to flood than to have a major fire. Due to the increased risk of flood damage for homes in floodplain,it is common practice for lenders to require flood insurance. This means that residents purchasing these f°affordable" homes could have the added cost of flood insurance (which can be quite costly) to their monthly expenses,decreasing the affordability of the homes if built on this site. A related concern for the affordability of this project is the association fees that residents will likely be required to pay to maintain the amenities of the property. These could include the flood insurance premiums, as well as maintenance fees for other items such as the grounds maintenance, sewer expenses, detention basin and drainage improvements that are to be privately owned and maintained by the home owners association, along with other related costs. I am a former owner at 2279 Exposition in San Luis ObispoA owned and occupied that property from 1992 until 1998. During the escrow period when purchasing the property I had completed extensive research regarding the adjacent properties, zoning and the culvert. The majority of the information I obtained was from the City of San Luis ON and private engineers. The two main issues I had were the capability of the culvert handling potential water runoff and the issue of keeping adequate open space. I was told the issue ofthe culvert was a non'issue as long as the land adjacent to my property was at a lower level than my property. I was also assured the City of San Luis Obispo would do all they can to assure the culvert would.be kept cleaned out. It is my understanding that construction of this proposed project along with access mads will fill in a portion of the adjacent property causing less.land to absorb a.potential flooding Issue from the drainage backing up.into the culvert. This is contrary to the original information I was given by the City of San Luis Obispo and private engineers as to how to keep the culvert a non issue. As for the issue regarding open space, I can't imagine the City of San Luis Obispo allowing any changes in our limited open space. It is a wonderful feeling to be able to hike the adjacent hillside without looking at another unsightly development that doesn't fit into the architecture of this wonderful quaint town. Please consider the views of the neighbors before ruling on this project. This doesn't have to be a project for the benefit of a few individuals, but a chance for the City of San Luis Obispo to do the right thing. Sincerely, George Sabo 440-9393 Td W":60 2002 SS '100 'ON XUJ woaL Allen Settle-215 Bridge Street project _ Page 111 From: <WILLIBOB@aol.com> To: <asettle@slocity.org> Date: Sat, Nov 29, 2003 2:49 PM RECEIVED Subject: 215 Bridge Street project DEC 0 G 2003 362 Woodbridge San Luis Obispo CA 93401 SLO CITY CLERK December 1, 2003 Allen K. Settle, Council Member 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Re: 215 Bridge Street development Dear Mr. Settle: You will be asked to approve the 215 Bridge Street development on December 2, 2003. Please allow time for further study before you approve this project. This project takes 2 1/2 acres of Designated Open Space. Open Space is the heart of our neighborhood and shouldn't be given to a developer. The project will be built on a zoned flood plain and their plan to"slow the water"has not been approved by professional engineers. Proposed garages have been changed to car ports to allow water to flow through. To meet the city's parking requirements,the developer has included tandem parking. The manufacturing business located at 201 Bridge Street will be impacted. The developer asserts all residents will have to sign a waiver not to complain about the noise that has awakened us as early as 5:30 AM. Please reconsider the location of this project. We believe it will fail if built on Bridge Street. Sincerely, Willi and Robert Zilkey RED FILE , MEETING AGENDA %co7PWDIR � DIR DATE ITEM # f j SADIR CACE CHIEF.ATTDIR.01CLELICE CHFWC DIRIC DIR DIR IAI en 8etrie-215 Bridge Street.Dec.2, 2 City Council Meeting,Agenda _ Page 1 From: "D. & E. Dollar" <ddollar@pacbell.net> To: John Ewan <jewan @ slocity.org>,Allen Settle<asettle @ slocity.org>, Ken Schwartz <kschwartz@slocity.org>, Christine Mulholland <cmulholland@slocity.org>, Dave Romero <dromero @ slocity.org> Date: Fri, Nov 28, 2003 11:57 AM Subject: 215 Bridge Street Dec. 2, 2003 City Council Meeting, Agenda RECEIVED Comments on 215 Bridge Street, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and DEC U -2 2003 Adjustment of the Development Limit Line to Accommodate a 22 Lot Residential Subdivision SLO CITY CLERK City Council, You have before you, a complex proposal that has been rushed to you without due analysis.There are good aspects to this proposal; sustainable housing, affordability potentials, low energy consumption and so forth. However, I do not believe that the good aspects of this proposal have been well qualified nor quantified.The not so good aspects of this proposal throw up a clear red flag; loss of zoned open space, precedent setting for adjacent and other areas in the city, building in a flood plain, impacts on M zoning, rising the development limit line, staff bias and lack of an EIR for a thorough analysis of this proposed project and its impacts. I urge you to reject this whole project. "There are too many unanswered questions about open space zoning for this parcel. This needs very thorough unbiased research. •There are several apparent conflicts with city policies that all go in favor of the proposed project • Building in a flood zone is not good planning. • By building a medium density residential area adjacent to a M zone -you are in effect, driving that business away and restricting (a taking)their operations and operating practices • Setting precedent for other developers to take zoned open space RED FILE and develop, change development limit lines, etc. IIIIE ING AGENDA • Not having an EIR that provides clear analysis of proposed project impacts DAT I� ITEM # •The proposed project has many lofty ideas, but they are not well qualified or quantified: how much energy is going to be saved?, how9 when?who will provide electric cars? how many-7 when?who provides maintenance?vehicle replacement? building designed so as not to need air conditioning (who has an air conditioned house in SLO ?),who will be responsible for the private sewer?will there be an adequate bond with the city on the private sewer? Etc. In general,the proposed projects benefits are overstated and under qualified and quantified. " If this project is built, I think the city will be hearing a lot of complaints from new residents- noise,flooding, parking, etc. I2-000N IL 2'CDD DIR ICAO LaAIN DIR In Summary- Reject this proposal. CACAO C;,FIAE CHIEF ,®'ATTORNEY 2r PW DIR OCLERK/ORIG ZPOLICECHF" Sincerely, ❑ DEPT HEADS ;Z1 REC DIR ;2 Ja'UTIL DIR Don Dollar 2"HR DIR — Ale S le-215 Bridge Street Dec.2, 2F ,.City_Council Meeting, Agenda - Page 2 2357 Banderola SLO 781.0118 P.S. Attached are comments I submitted previously for the two planning commission meetings on this proposal email sent November 1, 2003 Phil Dunsmore, Please forward my comments to the Planning Commission in time for the November 5,2003 meeting. The city web site does not list email contacts for the Planning Commission. Comments on 215 Bridge Street-please enter into the public record I appreciate the work that the Planning Commission does for the residents of San Luis Obispo. I look to city government to make the city a better place for residents and a layer of protection from moneyed interests. In the matter before the Commission now, you have the opportunity to use good strong planning principles for the good of the city and its residents. There are some very good features of this proposal, especially the sustainability and environmentally friendly issues. Many of these potentially positive features are overstated and not quantified. However,those potentially positive features are over shadowed by the very poor features of the proposal,changing the General Plan that has been in effect for over 20 years is a big deal. Losing Open Space (private land that is.open space contiguous to designated city owned Open Space) is a big deal. How will that contiguous open space be replaced? Losing M zoning.The proposed new residential units will cause numerous conflicts with existing establishments (noise, traffic, parking, etc.). As we heard the proponent state at the September 10 Planning Commission meeting - he wanted a place to live where he has lots of space between his place and others. Well, it certainly looks like he plans to sell out and move if this proposal goes through. It would be too crowded for him, let along the desperate people that might buy the proposed homes below. I strongly urge you to reject the request to change the General Plan and Zoning. I will list more specific comments below. 1. Do not amend or change the General Plan - leave as Open Space 2. Do not change zoning - leave as Open Space and Manufacturing 3. Do not adjust development limit line 4. Loss of General Plan/zoned open space-we cannot afford to lose any-this sets a terrible precedent that others will want to follow 5. Emergency access-restricted and limited-when, not if, it floods, how would residents get out? How would rescuers get in? 6. The Conservation Guidelines for Open Space lands of the City of SLO was approved by the City Council last year. It establishes the proceedure/policy for managing all city owned open spaces.The Guidelines also went before the Planning Commission.The proponents proposal to build a path or trail.to and then through city owned open space needs to be dropped from this proposal and go through the South Hills Open Space planning process when it [Allen Settle-215 Bridge Street Dec. 2, 2' - City Council Meeting, Agenda Page 3 comes up. Let's not circumvent another established process that only so recently went into effect. 7. Don't arbitrarily change the development limit line from 175 foot contour to the 185 foot contour. 8. Natural resources will be impacted by loss of habit,fragmentation and encroachment. Even though sensitive or endangered species may not be impacted, others will and the quality of habitat will be diminished by 20 some homes, roads,yards, etc. 9. Staff Report Page 6- near bottom of page, bullet item 3- I do not see how the proposal will additionally presence and enhance the rock features and hillside features more than leaving them alone as they are now. It seems to me,that putting 20 some homes right next to it will diminish the visual resources and by having more people using the immediate areas around their homes, impact those nearby resources-pets roaming the area, kids playing, people walking, etc.'I do not think the proposal meets this criteria. 10. Staff Report Page 6-near bottom of page, bullet item 4- I do not see how building a public access trail from now vacant private land to city owned open space is a public amenity.The proposal refuses to state whether or not the road from Bridge Street to the proposed homes will be private or public. If it is private, this would further cloud the issue of public amenity. Building a trail for only the residents of the proposed project is very limited, if the public cannot use it to walk through the project and continue onto Bridge Street. I not think the proposal meets this criteria. 11. Staff Report Page 6-near bottom of page, bullet item 1 -When reading the Staff Report, I see several types of affordable housing -moderately, federal, affordable, etc. I think this needs much clarification and quantification before this criteria can be judged to meet the criteria. 12. Staff Report Page 7- first full paragraph -wedging housing into an existing manufacturing area is not"a more reasonable use then the present Manufacturing designation." 13. Staff Report Page 8- Inclusionary Housing - what is "moderately affordable"? Is that different than affordable? How?Why? 14. Staff Report Page 9 - LU 2.2.2: Separation and Buffering- this issue is not met. I live three and half blocks east of the proposal and I routinely hear loud noises from the manufacturing area, starting at 5:30 am 15. Staff Report Page 11 -first full paragraph -delete paragraph and follow comment#6 above. 16. Comment D1/A1 Garcia Architecture & Design (GAD) This does not quantify. Very vague. 17. Comment D2/A2 GAD-This clearly shows that the bases of building and construction sites for seven buildings will be above 175 foot contour 18. Comment D3/A3 GAD -This clearly shows that the bases of building and construction sites for three buildings will be above the 185 foot contour 19. Comment D5/A5 GAD - Don't build in a.floor plain -that is good planning. More than half the housing units are in the AO zone- two feet of water-this is significant 20. Comment D7/A7 GAD -This is very vague and needs quantifying , i.e., how many trips to the grocery store will be saved? lower building costs? how much? Furthermore,this project will not enhance and preserve natural site features, even using minimal cut [A°Ilen Settle-215 Bridge Street Dec. 2, Council Meeting, Agenda Page 4 1 I and fill, habitat will be lost,fragmented and greatly reduced in size, biodiversity, the existing wildlife corridor will be greatly reduced. Maybe the project means that the habitat that is not devoted to development will be improved.That would be a loss.. Also,the issue of losing open space is real. This private land that is zoned CO/S is contiguous to designated city owned open space and increases the visual and natural resource values of the open space. This item is important and has not been fully addressed. As the proponent stated at the September 10 Planning Commission meeting, open space around him was important in choosing his residence on the hill and open space is very important to me and many others.This includes private land that is zoned open space. 21. Comment D8/A8-see comment#6 above. Delete from proposal. 22. GAD Exhibit B-the whole exhibit is vague and needs quantifying. I do not see visual resources as part of the proposal. At what elevation would the upper orchard be? 23. Looking at the Staff Report in the Project Description by GAD, both the site and building design summary features are vague and need to be quantified to make knowing and informed decisions. In Summary: Reject this proposal Please feel free to ask me any questions, Sincerely, Don Dollar 2357 Banderola Court SLO 781-0118 For some reason, this was not part of the Staff Report, so I am attaching this for your information. From email I sent September 7,2003 Phil Dunsmore, Please forward my comments to the Planning Commission in time for the September 10, 2003 meeting. Thank you Comments on 215 Bridge Street 1. 1 do not want the zoning changed from open space to residential. I live nearby(off Corrida) and enjoy hiking in the South Hills Open Space. I enjoy the open space that is 215 Bridge Street. If the zoning is changed, will lost acreage and viewshed, be mitigated by more open space? How,when,where and what. Is the rationale for the parcel to be currently zoned open space, no longer valid? I do not know of any open space that we can afford to lose.Are there any agreements in place on the parcel that control how it can be used? 2. One of my neighbors, gave me a handout from MOME - on 215 Bridge - ------------- �AYlen Seftle 215 Bridge Street Dec.2, rk-A City Council Meeting, Agenda Street(www.mome.org). I like their ideas on sustainability, however, I think when you look at the claims,they are greatly over stated; i.e. wildlife corridor-already exits, will be diminished;gardens will reduce trips to the market; solar PV power will reap approximately zero net utility bill; no air conditioning -most homes here don't have air conditioning; etc. 3. Do not allow any vehicle access from 215 Bridge Street to Exposition -Woodbridge. This includes any construction, maintenance, planning or surveying. 4. 1 understand that the project wants a walking path to connect with South Hills Open Space. I think the appropriate process for that is to go through the Natural Resources program, when the Management Plan for South Hills Open Space is done (that process goes through the Planning and the Parks and Recreation Commissions, before going to City Council - City Council approved this process last year and I think it is the way to go). The Natural Resources Program is making management plans for all city Open Spaces and have not started on South Hills yet.Any path should be a public path. 5. 25 units sounds like a lot of lots to crowd in without going up the hill.What are the impacts to the viewshed? Sincerely, Don Dollar SLO 781-0118 CC: Dodie Williams <bndwms@fix.net>, Helene Finger<hfinger@calpoly.edu>,Jan Marx <janmarx@fix.net>, Pam Heatherton <pheatherington@charter.net> Allen Settle Agenda December 2, 200 215 Bridge Street Page 1 From: "D. & E. Dollar" <ddollar@pacbell.net> To: John Ewan <jewan@slocity.org>, Allen Settle<asettle@slocity.org>, Ken Schwartz <kschwartz@slocity.org>, Christine Mulholland <cmulholland@slocity.org>, Dave Romero <dromero @ slocity.org> Date: Wed, Nov 26, 2003 2:59 PM Subject: Agenda December 2,2003-215 Bridge Street City Council, RECEIVED I wish to address one particular issue on the proposed 215 Bridge Street: General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Adjustment of the DEC 0 I. 2003 Development Limit Line to Accommodate a 22 Lot Residential Subdivision. SLQ CITY CLERK Issue: Proposed Path from 215 Bridge Street to city owned South Hills Open Space. The proponent is proposing a five to six foot wide path, with decomposed granite base with steel board border. This proposal has not gone through City Council approved process -per Conservation Guidelines for Open Space of the City of San luis Obispo, October 2002 (Guidelines). This process was adopted by the City Council just last fall. It would be a shame to not follow it after the thorough input and review process that it went through. I urge you to delete all reference to this pathway from any measure or resolution that may pass on this proposal. Main issues with this pathway. ' Guidelines page 6 paragraph 4- Review/approval process for Open Space management plans, includes a comprehensive review of the total open space lands and review by the Parks and Recreation Commission -this process does not do a comprehensive trail needs/sensitive habitat/wildlife report, nor has it been before RED FILE the Parks and Recreation Commission ' Guidelines page 3 paragraph 4 Guidelines call for individual MEETING AGENDA conservation plans for open spaces that detail specific DATE ITEM #. � improvements-without a comprehensive analysis of the South Hills Open Space,this path placement is getting ahead of the process without qualification of needs, place, size, impact, etc. • Guidelines page 15 paragraph 1 -the proposed path size is five to six feet wide with decomposed granite base-Guidelines call for the path to be cleared, one foot wide(city standard) •Agenda package page 4-17 exhibit shows a bike and pedestrian path to open space. South Hills Open Space prohibits bikes and is posted as such. •Agenda package page 4-22 lists public comments, but fails to provide written comments from myself and others -this does not give a complete picture of public comment • It appears that the proposed path is above the 185 foot contour in l -COUNCIL -CDD place 'CAO DIR • Agenda package page 4-38 paragraph 2-adds decomposed granite t ;2'ACAO . 'FIN DIR the path base Q?�CRNEYF1RE CHIEF J LERK DPW DIR " Planning Commission meeting November 5,2003 Exhibit F-shows D ORIG �F, ppLJ C proposed cross section of path, five to six feet wide,with HEADS EC DIR HF landscaping adjacent lc UTIL DIR •The proposed path on the private property would not be open to the 1 �A'HR DIR public to access Bridge Street-as stated at the 11-5-03 Planning _ i Allen Settle-Agenda December 2, 20(' 215 Bridge Street - _.....__..........__..__.._.._.__—____, -- - Page 2 Commission Meeting - lacks public benefit As you can see,there are a number of conflicts with City Open Space Policy with the proposed path. I strongly urge you to remove any mention of this path from any approved motion, measure or resolution. It has not be adequately researched. I will be glad to answer any questions or to discuss this issue. Sincerely, Don Dollar 2357 Banderola SLO 781.0118 CC: Jan Marx<janmarx@fix.net>, Helene Finger<hfinger@calpoly.edu>, Dodie Williams <bndwms@fix.net> eAllen Settle BRIDGE STREET PROJEC—`'1ECEMBER g,CITY COUNCIL.AGENDA [T-�EM From: <Slohof2348@aol.com> To: <dromero @ slocity.org> Date: Sun, Nov 30,2003 11:59 AM Subject: BRIDGE STREET PROJECT DECEMBER 2, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM PLEASE VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT! My husband and I are long-time residents of San Luis- he since 1953, 1 since 1972. Our children feel very fortunate to have grown up here and all but one are still here-they are in their thirties now. We've seen many changes in our wonderful town and believe this project will be one of the BEST. RECEIVED We believe: DEC 0 .42 2003 the sustainability idea is great; SLO CITY CLERK would provide much needed housing for our workers; the innovativeness as a"model"for future projects here in SLO and/or statewide; the locals that are involved in this from John and Kay Semon to the architects etc are more of what our great city needs to appreciate. PLEASE.APPROVE THIS PROJECT sincerely Norma and Tony Hoffman 2348 Sendero Street SLO, CA (very close neighbors to this proposal) CC: <cmulholl@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <jewan @ slocity.org> RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATES 17 r,,4 # �COUNC!L �.2DD DIR 'CAO SIN DIR .0'ACAO iCFIRE CHIEF -2'ATTORNEY DPW DIR LERK'ORIG ZPOLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS �Z REC DIR TIL DIR �rH R D I rR Allen Settle-215 Bridge Street Page 1 From: <MJenny2282@aol.com> To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <cmulholl@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org> RECEIVED Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2003 10:07 AM Subject: 215 Bridge Street DEQ 203 This email is to express my opinion on the General Plan amendment which is SLG CIT` CLERK scheduled for hearing at the December 2nd City Council Meeting. I am not in favor of rezoning to R2 land which is currently OPEN SPACE I believe the citizens who live in SLO value all our zoned open space and it is poor precedent to let two and one half acres of open space be taken for any project no matter how affordable or sustainable the housing may be. Yes some of the units which I was told at the developers open house which are estimated to be offered for sale at from $160,000.to$600,000.would be"affordable" and more housing is definitely needed. But not at the expense of our precious open space.Also rezoning Manufacturing to R2 to allow a more favorable interest rate on the financing for the units that are in between existing manufacturing business (which gives employment to I understand 55 workers) may in the future put those jobs in jeopardy. We also need JOBS in SLO. . The proposed experimental development has many interesting features, but I believe it has too many homes in a zoned flood plain and if the requested rezoning is approved we will lose some open space which is in our General Plan which would be gone forever. Mary Jenny 2282 Exposition Drive SLO 93401 805-543-4311 _. RED FILE NC TCDD DIR TNIG AGENDA 12-CAO Z'=1N DIR ACAO .?,'FIRE CHIEF ITEM #al+-t� ATTORNEY , , PW DIR 1ZC1-ERK10RIG ZPOLICE CHF { ❑ DE HEADS. 2�RE.0 DIR rAllen Settle- Bndge Street Development -- Page 1 From: <AdamsMLA@aol.com> To: <Asettle@slocity.org>,<kswchwurtz@slocity.org> Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2003 8:09 PM RECEIVED Subject: Bridge Street Development DEC U le', 2003 Dr. Mr. Mayor I am writing you in regard to this project and asking you to vote against it. SLO CITY CLERK It is a very dangerous precedent to take open space and rezone it for any reason. The parking is not sufficient and will spill into the neighborhoods. I currently live in a neighborhood that lacks parking; my driveway is constantly blocked and there is not enough room for my guest parking. The mix of residential and industrial is not correct. Please do not allow this type of project to begin. Open space is not for sale; it was paid for by all tax payers and should be treated as a sacred trust. The bottom line is this project is being built near a beautiful creek; and spring fed land, in a flood zone and just a plan eye sore. I realize we need affordable housing but do not start ruining the city of San Luis Obispo and the reason we live hear to satify a few people. You cannot destroy the character of this city in the name of affordable housing. Please do not allow the tax payers to have their land stolen from them along with the character of their city. Thank You Mark A.Adams 544-4578. RED FILE MEETING AGENDA cco r�aL �c-)� D!h ICAO Z�FIN DIR DATE ITEM # 17ACAO jy FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY -�. PW DIR C� CLERK/ORIG � POLICE CHF DEPT HEADS /E!!IREC DIR TIL DIR /NR DIR Allen Settle-Bridge Street Development Pagel] From: °Jenni Metzger" <slometzger@pacbell.net> To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmulholl@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org> Date: Mon, Dec 1,2003 2:46 PM Subject: Bridge Street Development 30 November 2003 =RECEEIVEDRe: Bridge Street Development To the City Council Members of San Luis Obispo:On behalf of my husband and myself, we urge you to please carefully consider how you vote Tuesday night for the future of this project. We ask you to please vote no. We are greatly concerned and opposed to the Bridge Street Project. Since my husband will be out of town and I haven't successfully found a babysitter for Tuesday night to attend the meeting myself- I send you this letter to let you know that although we are not able to join our neighbors at the meeting in opposition of the project,we agree with their concerns wholeheartedly and want to show our support. We are appalled that Open Space is even being considered at being rezoned! The parking impact and increased traffic (to both South Street and S. Higuera) are other areas of concerns for us. Being homeowners on Exposition Drive, we are already aware of the lack of adequate parking for the businesses and neighboring residents in the area and are affected by overflow.The overflow currently adds additional traffic and congestion to our neighborhood and I cannot imagine that being increased. The negative impact on the surrounding businesses of the proposed development site, the misleading title of`affordable and sustainable' housing (when only 2 units really meet those requirements) and the potential increase risk of flooding if the zoned flood plain is developed are other areas of concern we have. Please vote no on the project. Please postpone a vote and find out additional information, before making a decision (and losing open space) that cannot be changed once the development was to begin. Please act in the best interest of the city, neighborhood and local businesses by voting no. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jenni and Scott Metzger 2275 Exposition Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �OjNCIL CDD DIR � � CAO le-rIN DIR %ACAO r,- FIRE CHIEF RED FILE �'� ATTORNEY 2/PW DIR CLERK/ ORI 'POLICE CHF ME ING AGENDA ❑ D T HEADSREC DIR _ ��tj ,� Z� UTIL D'iR DAT ITEM # _ RECEIVED "'������iiiip����►�IIi� Illll�i C O u n C 1 t 11'1 e m o Ra n d U DEC u 2 2093 ERK DATE: December 1, 2003 RED FILE — 6111E ING AGENDA TO: City CouncilD T ITEM #f [2"COUN61- TCDD DIR VIA: Ken Ham ian, CAO le?CAO Z. FIN DIR p CACAO AFIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY ,DPW DIR FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Dir CLERK/ORIG Z'POLICE CHF 0 DEPT HEADS Z REC DIR BY: PhilipDunsmore, Associate Planner Z-r1'� ' �UTIL DIR SUBJECT: Red File Memo, Bridge Street Project (Public Hearing Item 4) r The Council has received extensive correspondence on the above referenced agenda item since the publication of the City Council staff report. Staff would like to take this opportunity to offer the following clarification regarding various issues: Land Use.May Council has received correspondence from Helene Finger indicating that the entire property is designated open space by the City's General Plan. Ms. Finger raised similar issues during the Planning Commission hearings on the development. Despite analysis contained in our staff reports, public hearing clarification, and several attempts at direct communication, staff has been unsuccessful in clearing up this issue with Ms. Finger. As far back as 1965, the City's General Plan Map identifies the lower portion of this property as Services and Manufacturing, and upper portion as Open Space. The Land Use Element map adopted in 1994 shows a similar split designation for the property. With each revision of the General Plan Map, the land use designations have become more accurate to reflect area topography and natural resources, consistent with the General Plan policies. It was not until about 1998 that the City adopted a General Plan land use map that more accurately reflected topography and closely matched the City's hillside policies.. This map is the version that is utilized today and recognized as the City's official land use map. As presented in the Council report for the Bridge Street development, the General Plan land use map identifies the subject property as open space above the 175-foot contour and Services and Manufacturing north to Bridge Street. This designation is consistent with the hillside policies and consistent with earlier land use designations of the property. The boundaries of the General Plan map are also consistent with adjacent properties, while the zoning map is not. The General Plan map is the primary land use guide that directs land development patterns. The Development Limit Line is established by policy and is the second guiding document that should direct the zoning map. The zoning map should implement both the General Plan map and hillside development policies such as the Development Limit Line. This property's Council Red Filet i Conservation / Open Space Zoning is currently inconsistent with the General Plan. This inconsistency needs to be corrected. In 1995 the development limit line was adjusted up to the 175-foot contour, and again the zoning designation was not corrected. The assumptions and exhibit prepared for the staff report in 1995 incorrectly indicate that the property was designated entirely as open space on the General Plan map rather than having a split designation as outlined above. Private Road vs.Public.Road Most condominiums and planned developments utilize a private road to access the residences. This allows the road to be developed to alternative standards related to materials (such as pavers, turf block and concrete) and width. Allowing a narrowed road reduces the site impacts and reduces the speed of vehicles. A public road at the proposed location would eliminate many of the proposed residences or require the residences to be pushed further up on the hillside. Parkins The proposed project provides one more parking space than the City's parking regulations require. Motorcycle parking is not taking the place of required vehicle parking. Tandem parking is allowable per City standards and is requested for 8 of the required parking spaces. The project is close to public transportation, including local and regional transit facilities. Bicycle parking and pedestrian amenities are incorporated with the intention of reducing vehicle dependency. Residential parking typically peaks during weekends, holidays and evenings and the nearby Street (Bridge Street) is empty during these times and could be used for parking should it be necessary. The City has the ability through the PD process to require more parking than normal City standards. However, in this case staff believes that parking will be adequately provided. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Units 1-4 are proposed within close proximity to an existing manufacturing building. The City's Noise Element establishes maximum noise exposure for noise sensitive uses such as residences. The maximum impulsive noise level is 65 dB, the maximum average noise level is 70 dB and the maximum hourly average for noise is 50dB. These noise levels are maximum thresholds for outdoor noise exposure for daytime hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. During several site visits, staff witnessed noise levels that fall below the City's 65 dB standard. The proposed new residential buildings would be constructed with insulation values that far exceed the building code requirements. The construction style combined with a quasi-industrial design and a noise disclosure recorded on the properties will greatly reduce the potential for noise conflicts. It is not likely that noise levels for the residential occupants of the property will reach unacceptable levels. The owners of the existing business have stated the desire to expand the use into nighttime hours and expand the general use of the site as a manufacturing business. The Council should be aware that this business is already surrounded on two sides by residential zoning and residential uses and is already subject to the standards in the City's noise element for day and nighttime noise sources. At night, the maximum allowed noise exposure, as limited by the City's Noise Element, is 5 dB lower than allowed daytime noise exposure. Existing residential uses already limit the sites ability to operate additional noise producing uses between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. r � - Can residential be compatible with Services and Manufacturing? The City of San Luis Obispo's entire downtown is host to a variety of mixed uses combining residential units with commercial occupancies. Many residential apartments exist above commercial businesses that contain high levels of activity and large volumes of pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Late night activities at bars and restaurants combined with early delivery vehicles, everyday traffic noise and vehicle pollution far exceed what is anticipated to occur at this site with a combination of residential and commercial uses within close proximity. The adjacent Architectural Iron Works business that operates out of the former Bailey Bridge Building is the only manufacturing building located within the vicinity. It's operations are primarily daytime, so the noise average is still low because of low nighttime noise levels. Other nearby uses are office and residential. Flooding A portion of the site is recognized as an area that is subject to shallow flooding of up to 2 feet in depth during a 100-year storm event.. As described in the preliminary drainage analysis prepared by EDA, the project has been designed to accommodate the existing floodplain without creating additional flood impacts. The Public Works department has analyzed the proposed project and the preliminary drainage analysis and has found that it complies with City Policies for construction within a flood zone. Pursuant to the City's flood standards, the residences will be elevated above the flood plain and floodwater cannot be increased by the new development. Although not required by the analysis, the applicant has created a design that proposes carports on the first level of the units to allow potential floodwaters to flow through the building reducing potential flood impacts. �Iliilill;ll? Illlillll IIIIIII� III AiacoUnc1t MCM01ZAnbU RECEIVED DEC 0 2003 DATE: December 1, 2003 RED FILE TO: ME.,TING AGENDA City Council TE ITEM #� VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO ?COUN IL 12CA0 CDD DIR OFIN DIR [p1ACAO ,GFIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY -�2-PW DIR FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Dire CLERK/ORIG -a-POLICE CH ❑ DEPT HEADS An AEC DIR BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner l e"�Ci.3d� ,�Q �UTIL DIR FIKn PI! ,, SUBJECT: Red File Memo, Bridge Street Project (Public Hearing Item 4)� The Council has received extensive correspondence on the above referenced agenda item since the publication of the City Council staff report. Staff would like to take this opportunity to offer the following clarification regarding various issues: Laird Use May Council has received correspondence from Helene Finger indicating that the entire property is designated open space by the City's General Plan. Ms. Finger raised similar issues during the Planning Commission hearings on the development. Despite analysis contained in our staff reports, public hearing clarification, and several attempts at direct communication, staff has been unsuccessful in clearing up this issue with Ms. Finger. As far back as 1965, the City's General Plan Map identifies the lower portion of this property as Services and Manufacturing, and upper portion as Open Space. The Land Use Element map adopted in 1994 shows a similar split designation for the property. With each revision of the General Plan Map, the land use designations have become more accurate to reflect area topography and natural resources, consistent with the General Plan policies. It was not until about 1998 that the City adopted a General Plan land use map that more accurately reflected topography and closely matched the City's hillside policies. This map is the version that is utilized today and recognized as the City's official land use map. As presented in the Council report for the Bridge Street development, the General Plan land use map identifies the subject property as open space above the 175-foot contour and Services and Manufacturing north to Bridge Street. This designation is consistent with the hillside policies and consistent with earlier land use designations of the property. The boundaries of the General Plan map are also consistent with adjacent properties, while the zoning map is not. The General Plan map is the primary land use guide that directs land development patterns. The Development Limit Line is established by policy and is the second guiding document that should direct the zoning map. The zoning map should implement both the General Plan map and hillside development policies such as the Development Limit Line. This property's Council Red Filet Conservation / Open Space Zoning is currently inconsistent with the General Plan. This inconsistency needs to be corrected. In 1995 the development limit line was adjusted up to the 175-foot contour, and again the zoning designation was not corrected. The assumptions and exhibit prepared for the staff report in 1995 incorrectly indicate that the property was designated entirely as open space on the General Plan map rather than having a split designation as outlined above. Private Road vs. Public Road Most condominiums and planned developments utilize a private road to access the residences. This allows the road to be developed to alternative standards related to materials (such as pavers, turf block and concrete) and width. Allowing a narrowed road reduces the site impacts and reduces the speed of vehicles. A public road at the proposed location would eliminate many of the proposed residences or require the residences to be pushed further up on the hillside. Parking The proposed project provides one more parking space than the City's parking regulations require. Motorcycle parking is not taking the place of required vehicle parking. Tandem parking is allowable per City standards and is requested for 8 of the required parking spaces. The project is close to public transportation, including local and regional transit facilities. Bicycle parking and pedestrian amenities are incorporated with the intention of reducing vehicle dependency. Residential parking typically peaks during weekends, holidays and evenings and the nearby Street (Bridge Street) is empty during these times and could be used for parking should it be necessary. The City has the ability through the PD process to require more parking than normal City standards. However, in this case staff believes that parking will be adequately provided. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Units 1-4 are nrnnnced within close proximity to an existing manufacturing building. The City's Noise Element establishes maximum noise exposure for noise sensitive uses such as residences. The maximum impulsive noise level is 65 dB, the maximum average noise level is 70 dB and the maximum hourly average for noise is 50dB. These noise levels are maximum thresholds for outdoor noise exposure for daytime hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. During several site visits, staff witnessed noise levels that fall below the City's 65 dB standard. The proposed new residential buildings would be constructed with insulation values that far exceed the building code requirements. The construction style combined with a quasi -industrial design and a noise disclosure recorded on the properties will greatly reduce the potential for noise conflicts. It is not likely that noise levels for the residential occupants of the property will reach unacceptable levels. The owners of the existing business have stated the desire to expand the use into nighttime hours and expand the general use of the site as a manufacturing business. The Council should be aware that this business is already surrounded on two sides by residential zoning and residential uses and -is -already subject-tithe-standaurls-in-he�ity'&-raise-element--for clay —and -nighttime -noise sources. At night, the maximum allowed noise exposure, as limited by the City's Noise Element, is 5 dB lower than allowed daytime noise exposure. Existing residential uses already limit the sites ability to operate additional noise producing uses between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Can residential be compatible with Services and Manufacturing? The City of San Luis Obispo's entire downtown is host to a variety of mixed uses combining residential units with commercial occupancies. Many residential apartments exist above commercial businesses that contain high levels of activity and large volumes of pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Late night activities at bars and restaurants combined with early delivery vehicles, everyday traffic noise and vehicle pollution far exceed what is anticipated to occur at this site with a combination of residential and commercial uses within close proximity. The adjacent Architectural Iron Works business that operates out of the former Bailey Bridge Building is the only manufacturing building located within the vicinity. It's operations are primarily daytime, so the noise average is still low because of low nighttime noise levels. Other nearby uses are office and residential. Flooding A portion of the site is recognized as an area that is subject to shallow flooding of up to 2 feet in depth during a 100-year storm event. As described in the preliminary drainage analysis prepared by EDA, the project has been designed to accommodate the existing floodplain without creating additional flood impacts. The Public Works department has analyzed the proposed project and the preliminary drainage analysis and has found that it complies with City Policies for construction within a flood zone. Pursuant to the City's flood standards, the residences will be elevated above the flood plain and floodwater cannot be increased by the new development. Although not required by the analysis, the applicant has created a design that proposes carports on the first level of the units to allow potential floodwaters to flow through the building reducing potential flood impacts.