The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/03/2004, PH2 - USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT WITH 82 D council � . j acEnaa Repoat CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direc� Prepared By: Michael Codron, Associate Planner SUBJECT: USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT WITH 82 DWELLINGS AND 31,280. SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA, WITH A REQUEST FOR A MIXED-USE PARKING REDUCTION; 3592 BROAD (U/TR/ER 23-04). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving the Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. DISCUSSION Situation/Previous Review The Broad Street Mixed-Use Project is the first mixed-use project to be- proposed under the City's new mixed-use project standards. These standards were adopted with the Commercial Zoning Revisions in the summer of 2003. Normally a mixed-use project would not require review by the City Council, but since this project includes a subdivision action by the Council is required. On June 23, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend that the Council approve the project (Attachment 3, Minutes and Resolution). This recommendation came 10 months after the Commission's initial review on September 10, 2003. In between Planning Commission meetings, revisions were made to the project design to address Planning Commission direction and to achieve compatibility with the Airport Land Use Plan. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project on a conceptual basis on July 21, 2003. Building designs will return to the ARC for final review if the Council approves the overall proposal. Site Description The project site is zoned C-S-S (Service Commercial with Special Considerations) and includes approximately 10 acres of land with frontage on two major streets, Broad Street and Sacramento Drive (see Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). Orcutt Creek runs in an east-west alignment along the northern property line and then bisects the site in a north-south alignment. The property is presently developed with two single-family houses, three barns and a bridge. The bams were originally developed after World War II to house chickens. The property is not farmed and the barns appear to be lightly used for property maintenance. The bridge is constructed of 4- by 12- inch wood planks set on steel beams that span the creek and attach to a concrete headwall.. The creek is a seasonal, intermittent creek with a degraded riparian corridor. Willow trees are fairly 4 - 1 Broad Street Mixed-Use UNR/ER 24-03 Page 2 abundant and tend to occur within the creek channel itself. The property is generally flat, with a slight fall from Sacramento to Broad Street. Seasonal grasses occupy the remainder of the lot. Project Description The proposed project (Attachment 2) includes requests for approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Tract 2534), a Planning Commission Use Permit (Mixed-Use Project, Special Considerations, Parking reductions), Architectural Review, and Environmental Review. Development would include two 5,000 square-foot commercial pad buildings along the Broad Street frontage; seven office/retail buildings each with 3,040 square feet of floor area at the Broad Street and Sacramento drive frontages; and, an interior residential neighborhood consisting of 8 triplex buildings (24 dwellings), 14 duplex buildings (28 attached units, zero lot- line), and 9 detached homes. The total number of dwelling units proposed is 61. Future development of 21 dwelling units above the seven office/retail buildings is planned for a total of 82 units. (The proposed phasing of the residential units in the project is necessary because the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) does not currently address mixed-use projects. An amendment to the ALUP with standards for mixed-use projects is imminent.) The development plan includes a perimeter road around the residential neighborhood, which is bisected by a pedestrian pathway. The pedestrian path continues across the creek to connect the residential area with the Broad Street commercial area. The existing bridge would be improved to serve this function. There is no emergency or vehicular access required or proposed across the creek. A small park site will also serve as a detention basin during major storm events. A twelve-foot tall masonry wall is proposed along the southern property line, where the project site borders a UPS shipping facility. An off-site sound wall, to be constructed by'the applicant, is also proposed to attenuate sound generated by air conditioners on the adjacent property to the north; which is an unmanned facility used for communications. On-site parking is proposed for 279 vehicles. Evaluation The Planning Commission determined that the proposed project is consistent with the City's definition of a Mixed-Use Project. Mixed Use Project. A project that combines both commercial and residential uses, where the residential component is typically located above or behind the commercial. The Commission also determined that the project is consistent with the City's standards for mixed-use projects (Zoning Regulations, Section 17.08.072). The Planning Commission agenda report includes a detailed evaluation of the project with respect to these new standards (Attachment 4). In summary, the proposed project provides for internal compatibility between the commercial and residential portions of the site through its pedestrian connections to the plazas at the Broad Street commercial area, where most of the retail and neighborhood-serving commercial uses are expected to be located. The mixed-use buildings located along Sacramento Drive and along the creek include compact, private outdoor spaces and have separate entrances for residents and customers. The design of the project takes into consideration potential impacts on adjacent properties by providing a sound wall at the southern property line (UPS) and a new a � C Broad Street Mixed-Use ufrRIER 24-03 Page 3 enclosure for air conditioners located on the Level 3 property to the north. The project is also compatible with the new Cole Motors facility, located immediately to the north. The lighting at the car dealership is designed so that there will no spill onto the project site, and the dealership's vehicle maintenance area is oriented away from the residential portion of the site. Taken together, these measures are intended to allow future residents to enjoy a more peaceful atmosphere, while protecting adjacent businesses from complaints that could impact their operations. Subdivision Design The tentative tract map is designed as a single air-space condominium lot, with each of the residential dwellings and commercial spaces assigned a unit number. This subdivision proposal will provide a unique opportunity for small businesses to own their office or retail space. It also provides additional ownership opportunities for households in the City. It is expected that the . developer would also retain certain residential and commercial units to rent. The subdivision design is consistent with the City's Subdivision Regulations, and the Planning'Commission is recommending specific findings for approval, which are required by State law and included in the recommended resolution (see Attachment 9, Page 1, Section 2). Use Permit.Components The recommended action includes approval of a use permit that would authorize the mixed-use project in the Service-Commercial.zone. The use permit also allows for development in the Special Considerations overlay zone, which was established on the site when the property was annexed in 1993. The special considerations relate to necessary public improvements and a desire to insure safe, orderly and attractive development in the annexation area- as in other areas of the City (Attachment 5). Finally, the use permit will serve as a Master Use Permit to allow restaurants, offices, and medical services on the site without further use permit review. Conditions of approval are established to insure on-going compatibility between uses on the site. Property Development Standards The project is consistent with the City's property development standards for the C-S zone. These standards include building setbacks, creek setbacks, lot coverage, building height, density, and parking, with the approval of a mixed-use parking reduction. The Zoning Regulations authorizes up to a 30% reduction in the required number of parking spaces when a project has shared parking and a mix of uses that have different hours of peak parking demand. In this case, the peak parking demand for the residential uses on the site will be in the evening, when residents and guests are at home. The peak parking demand for the commercial portions of the site will be in the morning and at lunch time. With the 30% reduction, the total parking requirement for the project is 258 parking spaces — 279 parking spaces are provided (see Attachment 4, Page 11, Project Parking Table). The extra parking spaces are necessary to allow for flexibility in the mix commercial uses. Parking availability is not expected to be a problem on the project site because the applicant is restricting vehicle ownership to two vehicles per residential unit. This restriction will be reflected in the CC&Rs (Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions) for the project. While a ,3 Broad Street Mixed-Use U/rR/ER 24-03 Page 4 this restriction is unique, it is particularly appropriate in this situation because there is no on- street parking along Broad Street or along Sacramento Drive to serve overflow parking needs. Affordable Housing The Inclusionary Housing Requirement for the project has been re-calculated since the Planning Commission reviewed the project. The Housing Programs Manager and Community Development Director have determined that the most effective and consistent way to address. affordable housing requirements in mixed-use projects is to determine the base requirement using the commercial standard. In this case, the base requirement for the project is 2 Affordable Dwelling Units (ADUs) per acre, or 20 ADUs. Because the project includes a residential component, Table 2a.is used to adjust the base requirement. In this case, Table 2a brings the total down to 10 ADUs. This is because the residential density of the project equals 9.98 dwelling units per-acre, and the average residential unit size is 1,261 square feet, resulting in an adjustment factor of.5. The applicant is proposing to.build 6 ADUs and will pay an in-lieu fee to cover the remaining requirement: The developer is also proposing to reserve 50% of the market-rate units in the project for local residents or employees. During the first 21 days after the initial sales release, the developer will . only accept offers from residents or employees working or living in the County. The program will be modeled on the eligibility requirements established for the City's. affordable housing lotteries. Staff will work closely with the City Attorney on this issue to insure compliance with all fair housing standards and practices. Environmental Review The Planning Commission is recommending a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project (Attachment 6). Areas where mitigation measures are recommended include biological resources, hazards, noise, and air quality. The Council has been provided with the technical appendices for the project, which includes two biological studies, a noise study, a hydrology study, a historic analysis, an archeological study, a traffic study, an environmental site assessment and a soils analysis. These documents are also available for review by the public in the Community Development Department in City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Public Input Staff has received written correspondence from business people in the area of the project (Attachment 7). Those opposed are concerned with conflicts that may arise from placing a new neighborhood in the middle of an industrial area. There are concerns with children playing on machinery, loading docks and landscape boulders. There are also concerns about noise complaints that may arise as area businesses expand or new businesses move into the neighborhood. The Planning Commission sought to address these issues by strengthening the disclosure requirements for the project. As a condition of approval, disclosure statements regarding noise levels must be written into the project's CC&Rs (see Attachment 9, Page 5, #5). The people expressing opinions and concerns were added to the mailing list and noticed of the Council consideration of this project. n ^' r Broad Street Mixed-Use U/rR/ER 24-03 Page 5 CONCURRENCES Comments received from Public Works, Police, Fire, Utilities and Parks and Recreation are reflected as conditions of approval or code requirements, as appropriate. The Air Pollution Control District and Cal Trans have also provided significant input. FISCAL IMPACT During the Planning Commission's initial review of the project, a concern was raised that the project would have fiscal impacts associated with converting commercial land to a residential use. Staff discussed the issue with the City's Finance Director, who prepared an evaluation for the Commission's consideration (see Attachment 8). In summary, the evaluation concludes that the project will have a small fiscal impact on the City, but that the impact will be minor because the change itself is minor. As such, factors other than fiscal impact should be considered in evaluating the desirability of the proposed land use. ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council can continue consideration of the project if more information is needed to make a decision. 2. The City Council can deny the project if one or more of the required findings cannot be made. This alternative is not recommended because the project is consistent with the City's Subdivision Regulations and with Zoning Regulations requirements for Mixed-Use Projects. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Project Plans Attachment 3: Draft Planning Commission Minutes and Resolution No. 5400-04 Attachment 4: Planning Commission Agenda Report (6-23-04) Attachment 5: Special Considerations for the Broad Street Annexation Area Attachment 6: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Attachment 7: Public Correspondence submitted Attachment 8: Fiscal Analysis of Mixed-Use Projects Attachment 9: Resolution approving the project, as recommended by the Planning Commission PROVIDED FOR COUNCIL(ALSO AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW IN CITY HALL) Full Size Project Plans Appendices of Environmental Studies Revised Traffic Study Preliminary Drainage Report Full Text of Written Correspondence from Don Hedrick dated 4-21-04 and 5-5-04 (104 pages) LACOUNCIUbroad st MU(24-03).DOC a -� ��"� '�`.`- s� , � /, �'v vis■ � :� i�� ■�� s. pm sal ;'''�1 ,w if Al W's zs �� ! " -- � Attachment 2 � z~ �G a o �I 05 �� } Z NQ ^ w Naga G N <F 0 IN W�E all I►J� I j�j� �� JU @F Y9 a ' OG DX jEttr.i � � O � z� z2 ® V PMI Attachment 2 a �p Is gs � ave 'na 1 Jv ay •1 � Ilion OODoa �� tl •J ase�eCg3g B \ pppp 6 III � I I I I a � I � • F ! R � 2 I I ( W i W y % I i• •� 'Rn... ��. ..� 33li �� O � I - SSy _�-•71n _ zce: � ® ! � � n`a1 t e oil S 8 oil i I q E d N U IN"'. 1119 egg fag ` e \ y � G �1gI 5 ggyy 4 F k� S� �� 9a a • -ease P: s a -g ttachment 2 s j�1 <6a Fee 1. I � 5 4 � i I O � < a< . w XQ x. '3 y r.d y a Ir ( v s� _ Y I I ------- I ---- I i I I I I I " ry $1 �r� - ttachment 2 s' 6 f4Qllu■III, v C■ N l SWc 3,�1 w m o � x m- C .,H \ ��^��•��e Vit' � \ � � 1,.. � .. ~ �A ))) � . ,. XL PI sir 'I�It II\t� -�p7 `I ,1F�r ��r i•'�,',,w,Y � ��1� vl NEImo• 1� '�Fq l,r ,� ��j>.J��1�1�,• 1 1,� j.� Is 9 �P•'��•M`7Ai =,��{� 5 i�9d�•I ��'�� a _• • �17� 1 •� , ,}7 JU '!.rte�r i ,• � i. � � tl° � �e ♦!P v��\�1 Irk` !�/ pgi. •1..,•;:>��'; `fix ; G ' ♦ ,F 11 l i 1 IA •1 sY� ,v �"Yi I, r u 1� �3♦ II. µ � , _ 1 �r. .0 1 •�' .�',�'�`��' .i a �.. i.I;' • � n .I S �,pl �! •� i �d � yll u ED .I. NMI Mly Y. -` t �K. JAI 1, !I ` ,251, 1, • �.i z s � _ <I 11 �♦..o � SII tu'I"I' rt'�.i I�, �I , .,♦� __ ii 3, I II I ! � I! 11 � r; �.�W+* +il`��II ■ s`m� Iii 1,911 low LO MR- ^Ch , t �`.RRn� sl1 !� + III:� 11 f 5 III ",I' it a 7 I •.. �N..9u : ! iJ '....y39 ��II�II J• � i Ifl' III -i. .� o�b;l��4i1. _ L i Attachment 3 Draft Planning Commission L, .rtes June 23, 2004 Page 2 2. 3592 Broad Street. TR, U, and ER 24-03: Review of a vesting tentative tract map for a condominium project with mixed commercial and residential development; Use Permit to allow a mixed use development with 82 dwellings and 35,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor area and possible parking reductions, and environmental review; C-S-S zone; Broad Street Partners, LP, applicant. (Michael Codron) Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report recommending that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the use permit, vesting tentative tract map and mitigated negative declaration for the project, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. Hamish Marshall, applicant, presented an overhead description and review of the proposed project, and explained their goal to provide a variety of housing types to address the housing problem in the city. As part of his presentation, the applicant proposed a program to offer 50% of the units for sale exclusively to people who work in the city. Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, SLO, submitted three letters in support of this project to the Commission. She requested that the Commission support the tentative map and the use permit. The Commission asked several questions of the applicant team on issues relating to noise, grading and drainage, subdivision design, potential commercial uses and project CC&R's. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, stated that she opposes this project because she felt it would ruin the community. Tim Williams, 411 San Luis Drive, explained that he has a seven-year lease to operate his Internet company, and this business needs uninterrupted power. He expressed concern that although his business was located in this location because it was zoned commercial, if residential uses are located close by, tenants may complain about the noise generated by the businesses. He stated that he opposes the idea of residential uses being located in this area. Don Hedrick, Sacramento Drive, commented that he does not have a problem with commercial uses in this location, but felt that residential is not appropriate. He about concerns with flooding, setbacks for this project, and the City's notification procedures. He suggested the Commission read the full written testimony he provided. Steve Delmartini, SLO, commented on the conflict between commercial and residential uses and felt it could work in San Luis Obispo because other areas have successful mixed-use developments. He expressed support for this project. Jay Parsons, Sacramento Drive, SLO, expressed a concern that children living in these residences could sneak in to play in the commercial use area. He expressed support Draft Planning Commission L ,rtes Attachment. $ June 23, 2004 Page 3 for a commercial development, and opposed the residential component due to potential danger to children living in the development. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Discussion focused on issues raised during public comment, including testimony from area business people regarding the potential for noise complaints from future residents. Concerns were also expressed regarding children who might be attracted to unsafe industrial areas such as loading docks, landscape boulders and other features of adjacent properties along Sacramento Drive. Based on this testimony and input from the City Attorney, the Commission recommended stronger language for disclosure of potential noise impacts to future residents. Overall, the Commission supported the innovative project design and the developer's commitment to providing "work-force" housing. Commr. Osbome moved to recommend that the City Council approve the use permit, vesting tentative tract map and mitigated negative declaration for the project, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. Seconded by Comm. Christianson. Language pertaining to the protection of the business owner on noise complaints was added into the motion, along with additional findings and conditions, that. Planner Codron read to the Commission. Commr. Christianson added an amendment to the motion that there be no dry cleaning plants. The motion maker accepted the amendment to the motion. Vice-Chair Boswell opposed the motion because he felt there needs to be further study to see if the sound attenuation is sufficient; he requested a stronger set of statements from the City Attorney on proposed problems for associated property owners. AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Christianson, Miller, Loh, and Aiken. NOES: Vice-Chair Boswell. ABSENT: Commr. Caruso ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 5:1 vote. Attachment 3 - ��III�IIIIIIIIIIII °11111 IIID°' IIIcofsAn s oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 June 24, 2004 Broad Street Partners, LP 805 Aerovista Place, Suite 202 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: TR, U, and ER- 24-03: 3592 Broad Street Review of a vesting tentative tract map for a condominium project with mixed commercial and residential development; Use Permit to allow a mixed use development with 82 dwellings and 35,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor area and possible parking reductions, and environmental review Dear Broad Street Partners, LP`. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of June 23, 2004, recommended that the City Council approve the proposed project as detailed in the attached resolution. The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on August 3, 2004. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office at (805) 781-7102. If you have any questions, please contact Michael Codron at (805) 781-7168. Sincerely, ial Whisenan Deputy Community Development Director Development Review cc: SLO County Assessor's Office Oasis Associates, CM Florence, 3427 Miguelito Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Donald Hedrick, P.O. Box 343, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Attachment: Resolution No. 5400-04 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. of 1 lY Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 5400-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MIXED-USE PERMIT, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW U/TR/ER 24-03 (3592 Broad Street) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 23, 2004, for the purpose of considering Application U/TR/ER 24-03, a mixed-use, condominium project with 82 dwellings and 31,280 square feet of commercial floor area; and 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 September 10, 2003, to review the project on a conceptual basis; and WHEREAS, said public hearings were 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 hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and has determined that the environmental document adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of 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 IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Environmental Review. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies all of the potential impacts of the project and the mitigation measures and monitoring programs listed in Exhibit B are necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. Section 2. Subdivision Findings. The following findings are hereby made in support of the proposed condominium subdivision. 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for mixed use residential development, consistent with the requirements and limitations of the C-S zone. 2. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because the project helps meet the City's goal of maintaining a compact urban form. Attachment 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5400-04 Page 2 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under- developed site adjacent to existing street rights-of-way with complete City services. 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing City block, 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 is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the creek on the project site is going to be enhanced and maintained to provide significantly improved habitat over the current condition. 6. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems because environmental impacts, such as noise, are mitigated by design and buildings in the subdivision will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes._ 7. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because the project will not conflict with any existing easements. Section 3. Mixed Use Project Findings. The following findings are required by the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.08.072) and are hereby made in support of the proposed mixed use project. 1. The project's mixed uses are consistent with the General Plan and are compatible with their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other because(1) all of the uses proposed are allowed or conditionally allowed in the C-S zone, (2) as conditioned, adjacent environmental noise and manufacturing activities will be disclosed to residents of the project in the CC&R's, and (3) the uses that are allowed have been chosen to insure compatibility and this use permit may be reviewed by the City if reasonable written complaints are received from residents of the project or the Police Department. 2. The project's design protects the public health, safety and welfare because environmental impacts have been identified and mitigated in the design of the project and the project has been designed in a manner that is consistent with City standards and policies, such as the City's Waterways Management Plan. 3. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site because it provides a large number of residential units that are affordable by design,and provides for alternative transportation use by residents and employees (transit stop, showers and lockers for employees, a mix of services that keep employees and residents on-site during the lunch hour, located along bike route). C4 4 Attachment Planning Commission Resolution No. 5400-04 Page 3 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 Mandatory Finding for More Restrictive Standards (parking limitations) 4. Site specific property development standards are needed to protect all proposed uses of the site and adjacent business because there is no on-street parking at either the Broad Street or Sacramento Drive frontages of the project site. 5. The proposed 30% mixed-use parking reduction is appropriate because parking areas on the site are shared and the peak hours of parking demand differ between the residential and commercial uses on the site. Section 4. Master Use Permit Findings. This permit is intended to serve as a Master Use Permit for Special Considerations, Restaurants, Medical Services — Doctor's Office, Office — Production and Administrative, and Office -Processing. Special Considerations (Required Findings) 1. The project is supported by Cal-Trans, which reviewed the preliminary design of the driveway entrances and exits and participated in the environmental review of the project. 2. Necessary public improvements are being secured through the permitting of the development, including frontage improvements, street trees, traffic signal improvements, street lighting and fire hydrants. 3. Site drainage has been designed consistent with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan, in consideration of the unique site constraints, such as the culvert of Orcutt Creek at the southwest property line. 4. The project insures safe, orderly development within the Broad Street Annexation Area because the project helps satisfy City goals for maintaining compact urban form and is consistent with the General Plan. Medical Services (Required Findings) 1. Medical services are compatible with surrounding land uses because adequate parking is provided on-site to accommodate a wide range of mixed uses and, as conditioned, 2. The project site is located along Broad Street, a street designated as an arterial,. and Sacramento Drive, a street designated as a commercial collector in the Circulation Element and has convenient access to public transportation because of a.transit stop located at the Broad Street project frontage. Attachment 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5400-04 Page 4 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 3. The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic in residential neighborhoods because the project site has access to Broad Street and is not located adjacent to a residential neighborhood. 4. The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) because the Airport Land Use Commission approved offices for the project site and the overall development is consistent with the Safety Policies of the ALUP. 5. The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with medical services because the project site is especially suited for a mixed-use project because of its location. Offices (Required Findings) 1. Offices will be compatible with existing and proposed uses in the area because the project site has access to Broad Street, public transportation, bike routes and convenience facilities for employees are anticipated on-site. 2. The project location will not significantly direct traffic to use streets in residential zones because there are no residential zones bordering the project site. 3. The project will provide adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related to noise; light and glare, loss of privacy and other impacts on nearby residential areas because, as a mixed-use project, these considerations are integral part of the project design. 4. The project will not preclude industrial or service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses because the proposed location is more suited to the types of retail and service uses allowed in the Service Commercial zone, than it is to industrial uses because of the high visibility of the Broad Street corridor. 5. The project will not create a shortage of C-S zoned land available for service commercial or industrial development because there are vacant, developable and under-utilized properties through-out the City in the C-S zone and the City is currently developing Specific Plans for two major expansion areas that will be able to accommodate these uses. a�� Attachment Planning Commission Resolution No. 5400-04 Page 5 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 Section 6. Conditions of Approval. The Planning Commission recommends the following conditions of approval. Mixed-Use Project Conditions 1. 6 affordable dwelling units shall be provided by the developer in a manner consistent with the City's Affordable Housing Standards, or through another program acceptable to the Community Development Director, to include 3 rentals and 3 for-sale units (two separate duplex units and one tri-plex unit, floor plans to the approval of the Community Development Director). No two Affordable Dwelling Units may be located within the same building. 2. Occupants of each residential unit within the project site shall be limited to a maximum collective ownership of two automotive vehicles (cars, trucks, vans). The CC&R's for the project shall include an affidavit to this effect which must be signed by each owner or tenant as certification that each unit is in compliance with the requirement. The language of the affidavit shall be to the approval of the City Attorney and Community Development Director. 3. Garages within the project shall be used exclusively for parking vehicles and may not be used for general storage, recreation or other uses that would prevent the parking of vehicles as required by the Zoning Regulations. 4. CC&R's shall address use of facilities by non-resident guests, alcoholic beverage consumption in common areas, and shall provide sufficient penalties to address violations, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 5. The project CC&R's shall include a requirement that all owners and their tenants consent to the higher noise levels they will experience living on the project site, and that these noise levels may increase in the future as additional properties build out and existing businesses expand their operations. The CC&R's will state that the project site is located in an area designated for services and manufacturing and the City's Noise Ordinance does not include the same protections in this area as it does for residential neighborhoods, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 6. The Mixed Use Project is subject to the use matrix provided in Exhibit A of this resolution. Modifications to the use matrix require the approval of the Planning Commission. 7. Restaurant uses on the project site shall be required to include interior spaces for the storage of food scraps and other waste and shall contract for daily garbage service, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission or the Community Development Director. Refuse storage areas shall be kept clean and odor free. If trash must be relocated from the interior space of a restaurant to one of the exterior trash enclosures on- a � .- I - Attachment 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5400-04 Page 6 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 site, it shall be done as close as possible to the trash pick-up time. To address noise issues, plans for tenant improvements shall be evaluated to keep kitchen areas away from exterior doors and windows, where residential units are located above. 8. The CC&R's for the project shall limit restaurant activities that create very strong odors, such as coffee roasting. Complaints relative to restaurant or other odors will be evaluated by the Administrative Hearing Officer,per condition#11. 9. Hours of operation for all commercial uses on the project site are limited to between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., unless the Director approves an Administrative Use Permit for extended hours. 10. The property managers for the project shall be required to maintain an updated and accurate parking calculation worksheet for the commercial portions of the project site. The worksheet shall be submitted to the Community Development Department with every use permit application required by this resolution. 11. This use permit shall be reviewed by the Administrative Hearing Officer if any reasonable written complaint is received from any citizen or from the Police Department. At the review hearing the Hearing Officer may establish additional conditions of approval as deemed necessary to insure on-going compatibility between commercial and residential uses on the project site. The Hearing Officer may refer the complaint to the Planning Commission at his/her discretion. 12. The applicant shall provide a continuous sidewalk between the project site and the Industrial Way intersection with Broad Street in order to provide residents of the project with safe and convenient access to the Damon Garcia Sports Fields. Transportation Conditions 1. Striping and Signage. The developer shall provide a signing and striping plan showing changes resulting from the project, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Said plan shall include travel lanes, bike lanes, traffic signals, street lighting, and associated signage. 2. Bicycle Lanes. The applicant shall stripe bicycle lanes along the project's Sacramento Drive frontage, consistent with the Bicycle Transportation Plan. Applicant shall submit a cross section plan for Sacramento Drive showing how the bike lanes will be accomplished across property frontage and adjoining parcels between Capitolio Way and the southern edge of the project site. 3. Main Driveway — The width of the main access drive shall be adjusted to accommodate one incoming lane and two outbound lanes (12 m minimum). - Attachment 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5400-04 Page 7 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 4. Prado Intersection. Project plans submitted for a building permit application shall include the most current Prado Road intersection information which will determine the location of handicap ramps and crosswalks on the project's Broad Street frontage. .5. Traffic Signals. Prior to the issuance of building permits, applicant shall request of receive from Caltrans all necessary permits to install traffic signals at the Capitolio— Broad and Prado-Broad Street intersections. As a condition of project occupancy, applicant shall complete the installation of said traffic signals, to the approval of Caltrans and the Public Works Director. All proposed traffic signals will be constructed with emergency preemption actuation (Opticom). If Caltrans does not support traffic signal installation at the time of issuance of the project's building permits, applicant shall install the traffic signal conduit and pull boxes and bond for the full cost of the signal's design and installation, for a period not less than five years and annually submit a signal warrant analysis to Caltrans and the City to monitor the need for signalization. The applicant is also required to provide an alternative traffic management plan (striping, turn movement restrictions, etc.) for approval by Cal Trans and the Public Works Director as a condition of occupancy. If the traffic signal is installed at the time of project development, applicant may request partial reimbursement of costs from the Public Works Director as a credit toward the requisite transportation impact fee. If traffic signal installation is deferred pending Caltrans concurrence, applicant may request a rebate of a portion of the transportation impact fee at the time that the signal is actually installed. The amount of fee credits or rebates shall be as determined by the Public Works Director, taking into consideration the project's percentile contribution to forecasted traffic volume on Capitolio Way that causes level of service to exceed LOS D at the Capitolio-Broad intersection, or the percentile increase in average vehicle delay attributable to project traffic. 6. Pedestrian Facilities. The proposed pedestrian bridge over the creek that bisects the site shall have a minimum clear inside width of 2.4 in (8 feet) with ramps at either end to accommodate people with disabilities. Applicant shall provide an on-site pedestrian walkway connection from the Prado/Broad Street intersection to the residential development on the east side of the creek. 7. Broad Street Sidewalk. The public sidewalk on Broad Street shall be relocated to the edge of the public right of way to provide_ an additional landscape buffer between the sidewalk and Broad Street. 8. Transit Turnout and Shelter. The applicant shall work with the City Transit Manager and owners of adjoining property to the north (Stanley Motors property) to establish a transit a-a3 Attachment Planning Commission Resolution No. 5400-04 Page 8 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 turnout and shelter along Broad Street. The turnout shall be located north of the project's Broad Street driveway and its design shall comply with Engineering Standard 4920, accommodating a single transit vehicle. The design of the transit shelter and the design and provision of any ancillary facilities (trash container, night lighting, benches, and signs) shall be consistent with standards contained in the City's Engineering Standards and the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). Applicant shall provide any additional right-of-way needed to accommodate the turnout. Applicant shall install all required improvements prior to project occupancy and shall receive a transportation impact fee credit for the documented costs of transit turnout construction. 9. Project CC&R's. The project's CC& R's shall include language notifying property owners that Sacramento Drive is designated as a Class 2 bike route and when the bike lanes are installed, on street parking on Sacramento Drive will be removed. Public Right-of-way 1. 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.). Sidewalk along the Broad Street frontage shall be a 2m wide detached sidewalk with back of walk located at property line. The resulting strip between the detached sidewalk and curb shall be landscaped, including street trees street trees to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Directors. 2. 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. 3. Access rights along Broad Street, except at approved driveway locations shown on the tentative map, shall be dedicated to the City. 4. The developer shall design medians per the Broad Street corridor plan to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 5. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the Sacramento Drive and Broad Street frontages. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. a �k Attachment Planning Commission Resolution No. 5400-04 Page 9 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the Sacramento Drive and Broad Street frontages. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 7. 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. 8. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, lumenaires, etc.) per City standards, including street lighting along Broad Street and Sacramento Drive. 9. The subdivider shall construct a bus turn-out, transit shelter, post sign and trash receptacle, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.- Water,Sewer & Utilities 1. The proposed on site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 1. The rate of runoff from the site post development shall not exceed that of predevelopment for the 2, 10, 100 year and 24hour storm. Analysis and design of stormwater facilities shall be consistent with the City's Waterways Management Plan - Drainage Design Manual. Attachment Planning Commission Resolution No. 5400-04 Page 10 3592 Broad Street, UfrR/ER 24-03 2. In order to mitigate for a decrease in water quality, the stormwater runoff from all improved areas of the development site, except rooftops, shall be treated in accordance with the Best Management Practices published in the California Stormwater Quality Association's Best Management Practice Handbook, January 2003. For the purposes of water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a 25 mm/24-Hour storm event. 3. The CCRs for the project shall require that the homeowners association submit, to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, a detailed report prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer addressing the condition of all private stormwater facilities and any necessary maintenance activities on a semi-annual basis (April 30 and October 1 of each year). The CCRs for the project shall also include detailed procedures for maintenance and operations of any storm water facilities. 4. A final hydrology report indicating how the project meets the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan and other applicable City standards shall be submitted prior to map recordation. The scope of the report must include analysis of all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate _point of disposal. 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 report to be subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be constructed to conform with the City's flood damage prevention regulations and the City's Waterways Management Plan. The preliminary report has been submitted and accepted by the Public Works Department. 5. 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. 6. 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 California Deptartment of Fish & Game. 7. 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. 8. 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 a 2ru Attachment 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5400-04 Page 11 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 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.. The WDID # from the State Water Resources Control Board shall be included on all plans submitted to the City involving ground disturbing activities. Mapping Requirements 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 Code Requirements 1. 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 r� c � Attachment Planning Commission Resolution No. 5400-04 Page 12 .3592 Broad Street; U/TR/ER 24-03 paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on a per unit basis for the residential buildings, and the size of the water meter(s) for the non-residential components of the development. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Credit is given for existing accounts on the property. 2. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. The continued use of any well will be allowed only on the parcel containing the well. 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. 3. Non-residential uses require a separate connection to the public water system for automatic fire sprinklers. The fire service lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of-way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service supports one or more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. 4. 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. Utilities Conditions 1. The development of the site triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that any existing sewer lateral to the property must be abandoned at the main as a condition of development, unless the lateral is intended for use with the proposed development and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for this purpose,the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for approval. 2. 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, including proper separation from potable water facilities and sanitary sewer facilities. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet oq 'Ob 1 1 Attachment 3 Planning Commission Resolution No..5400-04 Page 13 3592 Broad Street, UTR/ER 24-03 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 by Osborne, seconded by Christianson and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Miller, Loh, Aiken, Osborne, Christianson NOES: Boswell REFRAIN: None ABSENT:Caruso The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of June, 2004. onald hisenan , Secretary Planning Commission r� Attachment 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION' GENDA REPORT rrEM#2 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director 6? MEETING DATE: June 23, 2004 Prepared By: Michael Codron, Associate Plannerg:, l J FILE NUMBER: U, TR, ER 24-03 PROJECT ADDRESS: 3592 Broad Street SUBJECT: Review of a Planning Commission Use Permit, vesting tentative tract map, and environmental review for a mixed-use project with 82 dwellings and 31,280 square feet of commercial floor area, with a request for a mixed-use parking reduction. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council approve the use permit, vesting tentative tract map and mitigated negative declaration for the project, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval and code requirements. BACKGROUND: Situation On September 10, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on a conceptual basis(PC Minutes, see Attachment 3). The purpose of the meeting was to have the Planning Commission answer a central question: Is the proposed project consistent with the City's definition of a mixed-use project? Although no formal action was taken by the . Commission, a majority of the Commissioners expressed their support for the proposed mixed- use concept. A majority of the Commission also expressed concerns and noted the challenges presented by the project and its location within a light-industrial corridor. On July 21, 2003, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project (Attachment 4). The ARC was generally supportive and provided direction to the applicant on additional information that needed to be submitted before any action could be taken. The proposed building designs, landscaping and site features will return to the ARC for final review if the Planning Commission and City Council support the proposal. The requested entitlements that are before the Commission include vesting tentative tract map for a condominium subdivision, use permit for a mixed-use project and development in the Special Considerations zone, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Commission's action will take the form of a recommendation to the City Council. Data Summary Address: 3592 Broad Street Applicant: Broad Street Partners, LP Representative: Oasis Associates, Inc. Zoning: C-S-S (Service Commercial-Special Considerations) f Attachment 4 ARC 24-03 (Broad Street(. _./ed-Use) J Page 2 General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental: A Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended by the Director. Site Description The project site includes approximately 10 acres of land and has frontage on two major streets, Broad Street (an arterial road) and Sacramento Drive (a commercial collector). Orcutt Creek runs in an east-west alignment along the northern property line and then bisects the site in a north-south alignment. The property is presently developed with two single-family houses, three barns and a bridge. The barns were originally developed after World War II to house chickens. One of the houses is now used as a realtor's office, the other house appears to still function as a residence. The property is not farmed and the barns appear to be lightly used for property maintenance. The bridge is constructed of 4- by 12-inch wood planks set on steel beams that span the creek and attach to a concrete headwall. The creek is a seasonal, intermittent creek with a degraded riparian corridor. Willow trees are fairly abundant and tend to occur within the creek channel itself. The property is generally flat, with a slight fall from Sacramento to Broad Street. Seasonal grasses occupy the remainder of the lot:. Proiect Description The proposed project, Broad Street Mixed-Use, includes requests for the following entitlements: • Vesting Tentative Tract Map for Condominium Purposes (Tract 2534) • Planning Commission Use Permit (Mixed-Use Project, Special Considerations, Parking reductions) • Architectural Review • Environmental Review Development would include two 5,000 square-foot commercial pad buildings along the Broad Street frontage; seven officetretail buildings each with 3,040 square feet of floor, and, a residential neighborhood consisting of 8 triplex buildings (24 dwellings), 14 duplex buildings (28 attached, zero lot-line), and 9 detached single-family homes. The total number of dwelling units proposed is 61. Future development of 21 dwelling units above the seven office/retail buildings is planned for a total of 82 units. The development plan includes a perimeter road around the residential neighborhood, which is bisected by pedestrian pathway. The pedestrian path continues across the creek to connect the residential area with the Broad Street commercial area. The existing bridge would be improved to serve this function. There is no emergency or vehicular access required or proposed across the creek. A small park site will also serve as a detention basin during major storm events. In general, homes are oriented towards one another across a linear green space, and each of the green spaces connects to the main pedestrian path leading to the park and commercial development on Broad Street. A twelve-foot tall masonry wall is proposed along the southern property line, where the project site borders a UPS shipping facility. An off-site sound wall, to be constructed by the applicant, is also proposed to fortify the existing mechanical equipment enclosure on the adjacent property to the north, which is an unmanned facility used for communications signal regeneration. On-site parking is proposed for 279 vehicles. a -� Attachment 4 ARC 24-03 (Broad Streei___, Page 3 EVALUATION The project as a whole can be considered mixed-use because it is consistent with the following definition contained in the Zoning Regulations: Mixed Use Project. A project that combines both commercial and residential uses, where the residential component is typically located above or behind the commercial. The Planning Commission has generally agreed that the project can be considered "mixed-use," however, several concerns have been expressed regarding the design and timing of the development. These concerns are outlined in the evaluation below, which lists issues as they are raised in the 9-10-03 Planning Commission Minutes (Attachment 3). Project Timing/Connectivity to Damon-Garcia Sports Fields The Sports Fields project is nearly completed and activities in the new facility will soon be in full swing. The proposed mixed-use project could be constructed and occupied in late 2005 or early 2006 if approved this summer by the City Council. The timing of the signal installation at the project entry, which is designed to be in alignment with Prado Road, is a key concern. On its own, the project does not trigger the need for a traffic signal on Broad Street, and Cal Trans is not likely to approve installation of the signal until it is warranted by traffic conditions (i.e. when Prado Road is extended to Broad Street). However, in order to insure orderly development the applicant will be required to perform the signal installation or bond for the full cost of the signal, and will be credited or reimbursed based on the project's actual traffic impacts (see Attachment 11, Page 6, Condition #5). While it is possible that the construction of this project could happen concurrently with the construction of Prado Road through the Margarita Area, it is more likely that there would be a gap of several months to one or two years. If this is the case, project occupants will need to use the intersection at Industrial Way to access the park. There is a continuous sidewalk between the project site and the Industrial Way intersection along Sacramento and Industrial Way. The sidewalk is not continuous along Broad Street. Creek Setbacks/Flooding and Drainage/On-Site Park Size The project complies with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance, and takes advantage of an existing bridge to provide the pedestrian creek crossing. The creek is currently categorized as having a degraded riparian corridor. With the construction of the project, the creek will be enhanced significantly, with landscaping and bank stabilization. The grading plan includes a proposal to raise the grade on the east side of the creek to prevent storm flows from topping the creek bank. The park on the east side of the creek will double as a detention basin. During large storm events, water will be diverted into the detention basin and metered back into the creek so that storm flows do not exceed the capacity of the existing culvert that takes the creek under Broad Street. The size of the park was increased based on Commissioner comments during the conceptual review of the project. Attachment 4 ARC 24-03 (Broad Streets ;ted-Use) Page 4 Industrial Character of Neighborhood The surrounding development is characterized as light industrial. There is no significant heavy manufacturing that occurs. Businesses are primarily focused in the areas of shipping and receiving, printing and publishing, food manufacturing, vehicle services, telecommunications, retail sales, and manufacturing of building products. These activities are not associated with manufacturing uses involving chemicals, hazardous emissions, vibrations or other factors typical of a heavy industrial area. As shown in Attachment 5, several residential uses along the Broad Street corridor have either been established or are anticipated in the near future. Residential development in this Service Commercial area will be subject to greater noise impacts than similar development in a residential neighborhood. The residents of this new development will not be protected by the stricter standards in the noise ordinance that apply in the residential zones. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project includes mitigation measures to insure that noise impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. However, activities of local businesses can occur throughout the night, primarily involving idling trucks and loading of products and parcels resulting in increased noise levels. As a condition of approval, the CC&R's for the project will include noise disclosures on the activities that can occur and the limited applicability of the City's Noise Ordinance in this area. Use of Industrial Land for Residential Purposes A concern was raised that the City should not be dedicating such a large area of commercially zoned land to residential development. Staff discussed the issue with the City's Finance Director, who prepared an evaluation for the Commission's consideration (See Attachment 6). In summary, the evaluation concludes that the project will have small fiscal impact on the City, but that the impact will be minor because the change itself is minor. As such, factors other than fiscal impact should be considered in evaluating the desirability of the proposed land use change. Parking Lot/Building Configuration During the conceptual review, it was suggested that all parking should be provided behind the buildings along Broad Street. Since the Commission last looked at the project, the parking lot design and driveway location have been modified. The two largest commercial buildings are located along the Broad Street sidewalk with a ten-foot setback, as required by the Zoning Regulations. The remaining buildings are located adjacent to the creek to take advantage of that setting. This allows the residential uses to be located farther from the roadway and also opens up views through the project site to the Santa Lucia foothills beyond. This section of Broad Street is considered a scenic corridor in the Circulation Element and the proposed building setbacks are consistent with General Plan policy to maintain views of scenic resources. Housing Element Consistency and Affordable Housing The new Housing Element includes many policies that support mixed-income housing and variety in housing location, type, size, tenure and style. The new Housing Element also supports increased housing production. In this case, housing production goals can be met, while providing for commercial use of the land along the major street frontages, which is the least suited for residential use. This site is not identified in the Housing Element as a candidate for rezoning to a residential designation. � -33 Attachment 4 ARC 24-03 (Broad Street.__.ted-Use) �' Page 5 The Inclusionary Housing Requirement for the project, based on Table 2 and Table 2a of the Housing Element, results in a requirement for 1 low-income or 2 moderate-income affordable units at project build out for the residential portion, and one moderate—income unit for the commercial portion, based on acreage attributed solely to commercial development. The average floor area for the residential portion of the project is 1,261 square feet per unit. The density is 9.74 units/acre. This results in an Inclusionary Housing Requirement Adjustment Factor of .5. As a result, the total number of affordable dwelling units (ADUs)required is 3 moderate income ADU's, or, 1 low-income ADU and 1 moderate income ADU. Regardless of this requirement, the applicant has offered to provide 6 of the units, for inclusion in the City's affordable housing program. Environmental Review The Initial Study of Environmental Impact does not identify any impacts that are considered significant and unavoidable. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to less than significant levels. Areas where mitigation measures are recommended include biological resources, hazards due to the airport, noise, and air quality. The Planning Commission has been provided with the technical appendices for the project, which includes two biological studies, a noise study, a hydrology. study, a historic analysis, an archeological study, a traffic study, an environmental site assessment and a soils analysis. These documents are also available for review by the public in the Community Development Department in City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Mixed Use Standards The evaluation below follows the City's new performance standards for mixed use projects, with staff's analysis provided in italics: Zoning Regulations - Section 17.08.072-Mixed Use Projects This Section provides standards for the design of mixed use projects. A. Design considerations. A mixed use project shall be designed to achieve the following objectives. 1. The design shall provide for internal compatibility between the different uses. The proposed project design is based on a pedestrian spine that connects all of the residential pathways with the park and the commercial portions of the development. 2. Potential noise, odors, glare, pedestrian traffic, and other potentially significant impacts on residents shall be minimized to allow a compatible mix of residential and nonresidential uses on the same site. The residential neighborhood is centered on the site to provide a buffer from potential noise, odors, glare, and commercial traffic. Pedestrian traffic is kept along the footpaths so that the need to cross parking lots is minimized. ��/ Attachment 4 ARC 24-03 (Broad Street..__ked-Use) Page 6 The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes specific measures to reduce impacts from these environmental factors. 3. The design of the mixed use project shall take into consideration potential impacts on adjacent properties and shall include specific design features to minimize potential impacts. The project applicants have coordinated the development of this project site with the recently approved Cole Motors project to the north. There will be a shared transit stop and the lighting for the auto dealership has been designed to reduce glare in the proposed residential neighborhood. The other property to the north is an unmanned facility that will be unaffected by the proposed development. To the south, the mini-storage facility will be unaffected by the project, and at UPS, a sound wall is proposed to reduce noise and eliminate future noise complaints. Disclosure of noise conditions will be provided to future residents through the CC&R's. 4. The design of a mixed use project shall ensure that the residential units are of a residential character, and that privacy between residential units and between other uses on the site is maximized. The proposed building designs have a distinct residential character, especially at the second level living spaces. Small private decks are provided and the mixed-use units at the Broad Street frontage are oriented to the creek, which is being designed as a major amenity of the project. Separate garages are also provided for some of the mixed-use units. 5. The design of the structures and site planning shall encourage integration of the street pedestrian environment with the nonresidential uses through the use of plazas, courtyards, walkways, and street furniture. The walkway along the creek, the pedestrian spine, the active park, and the pedestrian bridge connecting the residential and commercial portions of the project are major strengths to the proposed design 6. Site planning and building design shall be compatible with and enhance the adjacent and surrounding residential neighborhood in terms of scale, building design, color, exterior materials, roof styles, lighting, landscaping, and signage. The site is not immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood, however, the project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, which was generally supportive of the proposed architectural character and building designs (Attachment 4). The ARC will review the final project design if the subdivision and mixed-use permit are approved by the Commission and City Council. Attachment 4 ARC 24-03 (Broad Street i.-aced-Use) Page 7 B. Mix of uses. A mixed use project may combine residential units with any other use, or combination of uses allowed in the applicable zoning district by Section 17.22.010;. provided that where a mixed use project is proposed with a use required by Section 17.22.010 to have Use Permit approval in the applicable zoning district, the entire mixed use project shall be subject to that permit requirement. The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on a Master Use Permit for the project. The uses that are anticipated include various types of offices, retail uses including restaurants and various personal and business services as consistent and appropriate for the C-S zone (See Attachment 11, Exhibit A). This list of uses is consistent with the uses approved by the Commission for the Roadhouse Mixed-Use Project on Broad Street and El Capitan. C. Maximum density. The residential component of a mixed use project shall.comply with the maximum density requirements of the applicable zoning district; except that the residential component of a mixed use project in the C-S or M zoning districts shall not exceed 24 dwelling units per net acre. The densityfor the proposed project is 9.74 density units per acre. D. Site layout and project design standards.. Each proposed mixed use project shall comply with the property development standards of the applicable zoning district, and the following requirements. 1. Location of units. Residential units shall not occupy ground floor space within the first 50 feet of floor area measured from each building face adjacent to a street, or any ground floor space in the CD zoning district. The project complies with this standard because all of the proposed ground floor units are located on a private street that is over SO feet from any adjacent City street. 2. Loading areas. Commercial loading areas shall be located as far as possible from residential units and shall be screened from view from the residential portion of the project to the extent feasible. The commercial uses are broken down into small tenant spaces that won't require separate loading docks. The.proposed commercial uses are smaller scale retail, service and office uses that will not have large inventory needs. 3. Refuse and recycling areas. Areas for the collection and storage of refuse and recyclable materials shall be located on the site in locations that are convenient for both the residential and non-residential uses. Garbage company trucks will be able to access the private street in the project and provide regular service to the residences in the central neighborhood. ^ Q ARC 24-03 (Broad Street. --/,ed-Use) Attachment 4 Page 8 E. Performance standards. 1. Lighting. Lighting for the commercial uses shall be appropriately shielded to not negatively impact the residential units. Plans submitted for architectural review and building permit approval shall be evaluated for the specific type of fixtures proposed to insure that this requirement is met. 2. Noise. All residential units shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts from non- residential project noise, in compliance with the City's noise regulations. The proposed commercial uses are likely to have peak hours in the afternoon and should not create adverse impacts to the residential uses. Significant steps are proposed to address noise, including the construction of two sound barriers and,the use of construction techniques that will minimize noise in interior areas. As a condition of approval, restaurant uses will be required to have interior spaces for storing refuse and tenant improvements must be designed so that kitchen areas are not adjacent to exterior doors or windows. Coffee roasting or other activities that create strong odors from restaurants uses are prohibited. 3. Hours of operation. A mixed-use project proposing a commercialcomponent that. . will operate outside of the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. shall require the Director's approval to ensure that the commercial use will not negatively impact the residential uses within the project. Individual uses that are subject to use permit requirements shall be evaluated based on their proposed hours of operation. Restaurants that wish to operate outside of these hours of operation must receive prior approval of an Administrative Use Permit. F. Requirements for Use Permit projects. A mixed use project that requires Use Permit approval in compliance with. Subsection B., or that is located in the C-S or M zoning districts is subject to the following requirements. 1. Property development standards. The approval of a Use Permit for a mixed use project may include: a. Conditions of approval that require provisions and standards in addition to, or instead of the property development standards of the applicable zoning district to ensure the compatibility of uses and surroundings; or Any conditions of approval that the Planning Commission feels are appropriate to insure on-going compatibility between uses in the project may be implemented. a -� Attachment 4 ARC 24-03 (Broad Street __/,ed-Use) Page 9 b. Less restrictive standards than required by the applicable zoning district, to the extent allowed by Use Permit approval in other sections of these regulations, to make particular use combinations more feasible. A mixed-use parking reduction of 30% is requested, as described in the Parking discussion of this report. 2. Mandatory findings for approval. The approval of a Use Permit for a mixed use project shall require that the review authority first make all of the following findings, as applicable. a. The project's mixed uses are consistent with the general plan and are compatible with their surroundings; with neighboring uses, and with each other; See Draft Resolution, Attachment 11, Section 3. The project is expressly encouraged by the Land Use Element which promotes a compact urban form, and by the housing element, which encourages a variety of housing types in the City. b. The projects design protects the public health, safety,.and welfare; and See Draft Resolution, Attachment 11, Section 3. The proposed mitigation measures are intended to insure.that the project iscarried out in a manner that protects public health, safety and welfare, and the project is designed consistent with City policies and standards, such as the Waterways Management Plan. c. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site. This finding must enumerate those benefits, such as proximity of workplaces and housing, automobile trip reduction, provision of affordable housing, or other benefits consistent with the purposes of this Section. See Draft Resolution, Attachment 11, Section 3. The project provides a large number of residential units that are "affordable by design." In addition, the project has immediate access to public transportation and the City's bicycle route network. The mix of uses that are anticipated are appropriate both to serve the project residents and other City residents at a location that is likely to become a major City intersection in the near future. 3. Mandatory findings for more restrictive standards. To require property development standards more restrictive than those of the underlying zone, the review authority must make one of the following findings: a. Site-specific property development standards are needed to protect all proposed uses of the site, in particular residential uses; or Many uses normally allowed in the C-S zone will be prohibited in this development. These uses include automobile services and manufacturing operations. In addition, the applicant has proposed a parking restriction ARC 24-03 (Broad Street ,,_:;ced-Use) } Attachment 4 J Page 10 of two vehicles per unit, which is implemented through a condition of approval and project CC&R's. This restriction is necessary because of limited on-sire parking. b. Site-specific property development standards are needed to make the project consistent with the intent of these regulations; or Only finding a. is required. c. The preponderance of the development proposed for the site is of a type not normally permitted in the underlying zone, so property development standards for the zone where such development is normally found are appropriate. Only finding a. is required. Subdivision Design When the Planning Commission previously reviewed the project, the applicant:was proposed a Planned Unit Development with postage stamp lots. The subdivision design has-been changed-to a condominium.project. . Asa result, there are no interior property lines proposed and City PD zoning is not required. Overall, the subdivision design is consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision.Regulations. Parte The applicant has proposed a unique restriction relative to parking on the project site. Vehicle ownership will be restricted to two cars per residential unit. Such a restriction is necessary because the residential units not have driveways that can accommodate extra vehicles and residents will not have access to on-street parking. Staff supports the proposal because it will greatly reduce the potential for conflicts between the residential and commercial uses on the site and on adjacent properties. In addition, residents of the site have access to the City's bicycle transportation network and public transit. A mixed-use parking reduction is requested. The total parking requirement for the project is outlined in the Project Parking Table below. A 30% reduction in the total nuriiber of commercial parking spaces required will provide flexibility for the mix of commercial uses on the site. This flexibility is necessary to allow for some parking intensive uses, such as restaurants and medical offices, to be established. It should be noted that with the applicant's proposed parking restriction of two cars per residential unit, only 122 vehicles associated with residents would be located in the residential area, where 141 parking spaces are provided. These extra parking spaces are attributed toguests and are located along the perimeter drive. They also function to provide additional buffer area. between the residential area and uses on adjacent properties. Garages on the project will be required to remain free and clear of storage or recreational activities that would prevent the parking of vehicles as designed. Q131 ARC 24-03 (Broad.Street, -Aed-Use) Attaehmant 4 J Page 11 Project Parking Table . ,� pec rkmg � Poal 4 Par`lcu►g Prov ;�' a j...sIM - �Yss$kFce''i'b . .i.-- nr•h' 2•' ` 'i''�!: : MAN s?.' 06111 UIIe'n q ': e h' �? a� , R . uurement ;�,�.�'"�..Re�uchons+_.Y-v.�.-��,n, . _�, - Single-Family 9 units * 3 spaces = No reduction= 141 Spaces (all 4-bdrs.) 27 spaces 27 spaces Provided Duplex 14 units * 2 spaces; No reduction = (14 2-bdrs. and 14 units * 2.5 spaces 63 spaces 14 3-bdrs.) =63 spaces Tri-Plex 8 units * 2 spaces; 16 No reduction= (8 2-bdrs. and units * 2.5 spaces = 56 spaces 16 3-bdrs.) 56 spaces Guests 61/5 No reduction= 12 spaces 12 spaces Lofts 14 units * 1.5 spaces; A shared and 138 Spaces (14 1-bdrs. and 7 units * 2 spaces = mixed-use Provided 7 2-bdrs.) 35 spaces reduction of 30% Guests 21/5 =4 spaces can be approved Commercial 1/300.square feet * for the commercial 31,280 parking lots= 104 spaces 100 spaces Totals 301 spaces required 258 spaces 279 spaces required provided For the purpose of this evaluation, a parking requirement of 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area was used for all commercial floor area. Certain retail uses have a less.intense requirement and certain office and service uses have a greater requirement. As proposed, the applicant is providing 15 additional parking spaces above the initial requirement; thus providing flexibility for the mix of future tenants in the commercial portion of the project. As a condition of approval, the future property manager will be required to maintain an accurate Parking Calculation Worksheet so that no uses are established that would cause the parking requirement to exceed the number of available parking spaces. Airport Land Use Plan Issues The Airport Land Use Commission has determined that the project is compatible with the draft revisions to the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) (Attachment .7). The draft plan includes provisions for mixed-use projects that the current ALUP does not. Project plans currently show the loft units to be constructed during a future phase. This is because the overall project density would exceed the current ALUP limitation of 6 units per acre. Once the draft ALUP is adopted, additional density will be possible. As a mitigation measure needed to insure consistency with the ALUP, the applicant will be required to apply for an Administrative Use Permit before building permits are issued for the loft units. The Administrative Use Permit process will allow the City and the ALUC to formerly approve the higher density under the revised plan. ARC 24-03 (Broad Stree,, dxed-Use) , Attachmc.nt 4 Page 12 Special Considerations and Allowed Uses The draft resolution, Attachment 11, including findings required for development in the Special Considerations zone. All new uses in the Special Considerations zone require approval of a use permit. It is recommended that the Planning Commission Use Permit serve as a Master Use Permit, since initial development of the site clearly addresses all of the special considerations that were adopted as part of the pre-zoning ordinance approved with the Broad Street Annexation in 1993 (Attachment 8). The special considerations relate to necessary public improvements and a desire to insure safe, orderly and attractive development in the annexation area - as in other areas of the City. This use permit requirement is somewhat redundant in this case because of the other permitting requirements for the project.. It was established in the event that an "allowed use" was proposed, which might not have provided the City with the opportunity to perform the same level of review. Exhibit A of Attachment 11 includes a table of allowed uses within the project. Incompatible uses, such as vehicle services and manufacturing, would not be permitted in the new development because of compatibility issues. The resolution does include findings to permit offices, medical services and restaurants within the new development, which are considered to be compatible uses. Conditions of approval are established with respect to garbage disposal and parking to insure on-going compatibility between these uses and the residential portion of the project. Public Comment (All Correspondence Grouped in Attachment 9) Jay Parsons who owns the commercial condominium project on 3621 Sacramento Drive, has provided written testimony. Mr. Parsons believes that the proposed residential development is incompatible with the existing development along Sacramento Drive. His particular concern relates to children and young adults living in the project who might find the landscape boulders, parking curbs, trees and water tank on his property to be an attractive playground for climbing, skateboarding, and other activities that would be disruptive to his business operations. Mr. Parsons has had these experiences in the past with children coming in from adjacent neighborhoods, and the thought of potentially 100 children or more living in proximity to the site has him very concerned. Although the area will ultimately be surrounded by residential development when the Orcutt Area and Margarita Area are developed, this project will be the closest to his site. Don Hedrick is a tenant of Mr. Parsons at 3621 Broad Street. He works in the neighborhood and has provided much written material for the Planning Commission's consideration. The largest submittals have been provided for the Commission, but are not attached to this report in total because they include over 100 pages. Smaller items of correspondence from Mr. Hedrick are attached in full. Members of the public who wish to review Mr. Hedrick's complete statements may do so at the Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street. His concerns include flooding, project design, incompatible uses and security, among others. Most recently Mr. Hedrick's concerns have been focused on procedures and notification of the project. One petition was circulated asking for "fair and evenhanded treatment" and "an overhaul of the way our supposed representatives practice their public duties." A second petition, attached to the first, is specific to the project and includes 16 duplicated signatures. In an effort to respond to Mr. Hedrick's concerns, staff has spent upwards of two hours in discussions with him at the planning counter. We have corresponded via e-mail and on the project site. Mr. Hedrick seems ARC 24-03 (Broad Street maxed-Use) ^ AttdCh(Y1Cf1t Q Page 13 to have the impression that City employees are conspiring to keep public participation to a minimum. While staff sympathizes with his frustrations with respect to two meetings that were scheduled and then continued by the Commission, the fact is that the project review has been complicated by inter-agency review and the need to insure that the Commission has the most updated studies available as part of its packet. As with all other concerned citizens, City staff continues to listen to Mr. Hedrick's concerns and answer all of his questions in full. Staff spoke on the phone with the manager of Producers Dairy, which is located about 250 feet north of the project site on Sacramento Drive. The activities at the dairy include shipping and receiving of dairy products, which occurs throughout the evening hours. The representative was not opposed to the project, but wanted staff to be aware of their operations. R. Neilson, a City resident, submitted written information evaluating the project with respect to several City goals and policies. His concerns are focused on environmental justice and compatibility of residential development with adjacent uses. Workforce Housing The concept of the project is to provide workforce housing for City employees and residents. In concept, this is achieved by providing smaller, more affordable units, and a range of different unit types within the same project. The developer is also proposing to reserve 50% of the units in the project for local residents or employers for a period of 21 days after the initial sales release. During this 21 day period, the developer will only accept offers from residents or employees of the City. This is a program that the applicant ran in Atascadero and he wishes to do the same here in San Luis. Staff will work closely with the City Attorney on this issue to insure compliance with all relevant standards and practices. This is a recent proposal by the developer and certain issues still need to be worked out. Since the City of San Luis Obispo has a different demographic than the County as a whole, fair housing practices may require the program to be extended to all County residents. Staff will continue to research the issue so that this program can be legally implemented. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Planning Commission can continue the project if additional information is needed or if more time is needed to fully evaluate the proposal. 2. The Planning Commission can recommend denial of the project, if the Commission cannot make the required findings in support of the mixed-use project or subdivision. Attachment Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Pr lans Attachment 3: PC Minute , 0-03 Attachment 4: ARC Action Lette , d July 23, 2003 Attachment 5: Residential Development. the Broad Street Corridor(Map Exhibit) Attachment 6: Fiscal Analysis of Mixed-Use Prod Attachment 7: ALUC Consistency Determination, dated 3, 2004 A Area a -�a Attachment 5 Ordinance No. ' Zk �, (1992 Series) Page 2 SECTION 3. Special Considerations Zoning. Lots 92 through 95, 98 through 100, and 1 through 4, inclusive are designated with the Special Considerations (S) overlay zoning to address the following land use concerns: 1. Regulation of vehicular access to Broad Street (State Highway 227) , including common access provisions and special frontage design measures to improve traffic safety. 2. To allow the city to secure necessary public improvements concurrent with new development, including but not limited to: utility extensions or improvements, frontage improvements and street trees, street improvements and traffic signal installation, Sacramento Drive extension to orcutt Road, street lighting, and fire hydrants. 3. To address area-wide drainage problems and the need for a coordinated approach to handling storm runoff, through on- site area regional detention basins; or through participation in an Airport Area drainage assessment district. 4. To insure land use compatibility and appropriate land use buffers on lots 98, 99, and 100 in accordance with the city's Edna-Islay Specific Plan land use policies. 5. To insure the safe, orderly, and attractive development of properties within the annexation area, consistent with timing and availability of water and sewer services and the infrastructure necessary to serve the new development. SECTION 4. Environmental Determination. The City Council has certified the project's Final EIR, and based on its review, determined that the Final EIR for the Broad Street Annexation adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed annexation and pre-zoning, and incorporates mitigation measures and monitoring program into the project, pursuant to Council Resolution No. 8023 (1992 Series) . SECTION 4. Zoning Map Amendment. The Community Development Director shall amend the Zoning Map to pre-zone the annexation area �. '43 Attachment 6 Hli�ll111 IIII WIS OBISPOcl ® s 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER#24-03 1. Project Title: Broad Street Mixed-Use 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: Michael Codron, (805)781-7175 4. Project.Location: 3592 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Broad Street Partners, LP 805 Aero Vista, Suite 202 SLO, CA 93401 6. General.Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing 7. Zoning: Service Commercial, Special Considerations (C-S-S) 8. Description.of the Project: The proposed project, Broad Street Mixed-Use, includes requests for the following entitlements: • Vesting Tentative Tract Map for Condominium Purposes (Tract 2534) • Planning Commission Use Permit(Mixed-Use,Project) • Architectural Review • Environmental Review Development would include two 5,000 square-foot commercial pad buildings along the Broad Street frontage; seven officetretail buildings each with 3,040 square feet of floor; and, a residential neighborhood consisting of 8 triplex buildings (24 dwellings), 14 duplex buildings(28 attached, zero lot-line), and 9 detached single-family homes. The total number of dwelling units proposed is 61. Future development of 21 dwelling units above the seven officetretail buildings, is planned for a total of 82 units. The development plan includes a perimeter road around the residential neighborhood, which is bisected by pedestrian pathway. The pedestrian path continues across the creek to connect the residential area with the Broad Street commercial area. The existing bridge would be improved to serve this function. There is no emergency or OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. &-L4 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. 8 0 Attachment 6 vehicular access required or proposed across the creek. A small park site will also serve as a detention basin during major storm events. In general, homes are oriented towards one another across a linear green space; and each of the green spaces connects to the main pedestrian path leading to the park and commercial development on Broad Street. A twelve-foot tall masonry wall is proposed along the southern property line, where the project site borders a UPS shipping facility. An off-site sound wall, to be constructed by the applicant, is also proposed to fortify the existing mechanical equipment enclosure on the adjacent property to the north, which is an unmanned facility used for communications signal regeneration. On-site parking is proposed for 279 vehicles. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site includes approximately 10 acres of land and has frontage on two major streets, Broad Street (an arterial road) and Sacramento Drive (a commercial collector). Orcutt Creek runs in an east-west alignment along the northern property line and then bisects the site in a north-south alignment. The property is presently developed with two single-family houses, three barns and a bridge. The barns were originally developed after World War II to house chickens. One of the houses is now used as a realtor's office, the other house appears to still function as a residence. The property is not farmed and the barns appear to be lightly used for property maintenance. The bridge is constructed of 4- by 12-inch wood planks set on steel beams that span the creek and attach to a concrete headwall. The creek is a seasonal, intermittent creek with a degraded riparian corridor. Willow trees are fairly abundant and tend to occur within the creek channel itself. The property is generally flat, with a slight fall from Sacramento.to Broad Street. Seasonal grasses occupy the remainder of the lot. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Planning Commission Use Permit fora Mixed-Use Project, Architectural Review 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Airport Land Use Commission CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPO 2 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEOKusT 2003 a - �� Attachment 6 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 X Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources X Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance A � Energy and Mineral Population and Housing I�" Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimi s 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 X and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 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)). CitrY of SAN Luis Oetsm 3 ImmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 a 410 Attachment 6 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 made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and X 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, nothingfurther is required. June 7,2004 i Date For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director. CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 4 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2[003 Attachment 6 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on 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. Vs Crry OF SAN Luis OBIsPo 5 ImnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcici isT 2003 "1- 4 Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and SupporLWnformation Sources sourcesIy potentially Less Than No Si ..cant Significant Significant Gnpact ER #24-03 Broad Street Mixed Use Issues unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings 2 X within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation a) The project site is not in the viewshed of a scenic vista identified in Figure 6 of the Circulation Element,Scenic Roadways Map. b) The project site will not damage or alter any scenic resources that are visible from a local or state scenic highway. The project site is located along a road of moderate scenic value. The visual resources in the vicinity of the site include the South Street Hills, the ridgeline of the Santa Lucia range, Islay Hill and Righetti Hill. The project will involve the construction of buildings up to 35 feet tall,which will all be setback at least 15 feet from property lines along Broad Street. The buildings are not tall enough to affect scenic views and do not form a continuous visual barrier along this corridor. The Architectural Review Commission will review this project for consistency with Circulation Element policies on scenic views. On July 23, 2003, the ARC reviewed the project on a conceptual basis and reviewed a photo-simulation of the project The photo-sim is taken from the Broad Street perspective, with the Santa Lucia foothills in the background and is on file in the Community Development Department. The ARC did not require any building design modifications for to maintain scenic views and must review and approve the final design of the project before any construction permits are issued. c)The proposed development will change the project site from a rural, ranch-like setting to an urban setting. The old barns on the property contribute to this character. Their removal is not considered a significant impact because they are not historic resources, as discussed in the Cultural Resources section. The creek that bisects the site is also a visual resource. The City's Creek Map identifies this creek section as having a"degraded corridor,but able to be restored/repaired." The project will not impact the visual quality of the creek,but will enhance it through riparian planting. d) The project will not create a new source of substantial light because the proposed surface level parking lots are relatively small,with much of the on-site parking provided in garages. Exterior lighting is limited to small,focused lights mounted on buildings,parking lot lighting,and small scale street lights that will be limited to a maximum height of 20 feet. Conclusion The project will not have an impact on aesthetic resources because the height and placement of the proposed buildings will have an insignificant effect on the various visual resources in the vicinity of the site. The project proposes to enhance the riparian vegetation along the creek corridor, thereby providing a tree canopy that will enhance the aesthetic quality of the creek. Project lighting is low level in nature and will not introduce a new substantial source of light to the night sky. Architectural Review is required to insure that the proposed development is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps 3 X pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to ion-agricnlgttal rue? b).. Conflict with ex'uting zoning for agricultural use or-a' X _ Williamson Act contract? _ 4 Crry of SAN Luis Owspo 6 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKLtsT'2003 a -� aAs Attachmentg Issues, Discussion and SupporNWInformation Sources Sources I y Potentially Less Than No Sigm cant Significant Significant Impact Us ER#24-03 (Broad Street Mixed Use) saes Mitigationhnpact Incorporated c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland X to non-agricultural use? . Evaluation a) The project site is considered Urban Land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Its most recent agricultural use was as a chicken farm,which were numerous in the SLO area in the 1950's. b) No Williamson Act contract exists for the project site or for adjacent properties. c) The project site is urban land. Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland, and may relieve pressure to develop similar land outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line. Conclusion The project does not have the potential to impact agricultural resources. 3. AIQi QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 5 X b) Conflict withor obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 5 X c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an 5 X applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Evaluation a),b),c) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PMia(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter)air quality standards.State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5`l'o per year until the standards are attained. The 1998 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that requirement.The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant source of PMro. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. The project meets many of the goals stated in the CAP because it is a high density project that is located close to commercial services and transit routes, reducing the need for occupants of the project to rely on vehicles for all of their transportation needs. The project is expected to exceed the significance threshold for ozone precursors ROG and NOx. During its operation the project is expected to produce more than 10 pounds per day of reactive organic gases(ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The amount of earthwork proposed during grading operations is also above the threshold for construction related air quality impacts. 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 `� CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 lNrnAL bTuoY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKLt�sT 2003 Attactzment 6 issues, Discussion and Suppon.. nformation Sources Sources y eotenaauy t&ssThan I No Sigm cant Significant Significant Impact Issues UImPact ER#24-03 (Broad Street Mixed Use) nu ig�on incorporated asbestos. Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to any construction or grading activities at the site the applicant must comply with all applicable requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. d) As a residential/mixed-use project, objectionable odors are not anticipated. Use permit requirements that are in effect for the service commercial zone are sufficient to insure that restaurants or other potentially odor causing business are controlled in such a way that odors will not impact future residents of the project site. e) The project will not involve a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the region is non- attainment because an increase in PMto emissions will only occur during the construction phase of the project. Project occupancy is consistent with the population projections contained in the CAP. Mitigation Measures: 1. Construction Phase Mitigation Measures: a All dict stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. c. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. d. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. e. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. f. All roadways,driveways,sidewalks,etc.to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition,building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. g. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be coveredor should maintain at least two feet of freeboard(minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer)in accordance with CVC Section 23114. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets,or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. L Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. 2. Operational Phase Mitigation Measures: a. For residential units,provide all of the following: i. Increase the building energy efficiency rating by 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements. This can be accomplished in a number of ways(increasing attic,wall or floor insulation,etc.); ii. Provide secure on-site bicycle parking for multi-family residential developments;and iii. Build new homes with internal wiring/cabling that allows telecommuting, teleconferencing, and teleleaming to occur simultaneously in at least 3 locations in each home. b. For retail/office uses,provide all of the following: i. Increase the building energy efficiency rating by 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements. This can be accomplished in a number of ways(increasing attic,wall or floor insulation,etc.). ii. Provide on-site bicycle parking. One bicycle parking space for every 10 car parking spaces is considered appropriate; iii. Provide on-site eating,refrigeration and food vending facilities to reduce lunchtime trips. iv. Provide preferential carpool and vanpool parking;and, Illi CITY OF.SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ar5-V a Ah Aftach-nent Issues, Discussion and SuppofflW Information Sources Sources P41ply Potentially Less Than No SiiMicant Significant Significant Impact ER#24-03 (Broad Street Mixed Use) Issues rites Impact Mitigation Incorporated v. Provide shower and locker facilities to encourage employees to bike and/or walk to work, typically one shower and three lockers for every 25 employees. vi. As indicated on page II-8 of the project description,implement a Transportation Choices Program. The applicant should work with the Transportation Choices Coalition partners for free consulting services on how to start and maintain a program.Contact SLO Regional Rideshare at 541-2277. vii. Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. viii.Use high efficiency,gas or solar water heaters. ix. Use built-in energy efficient appliances. x. Use double-paned windows. 3. The project site is located in a Naturally Occurring Asbestos candidate area. 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 state 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 requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM for Construction,Grading,Quarrying,and Surface Mining Operations. These requirements may include but are not limited to 1) an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan which must be approved by the District before construction begins, and 2) an Asbestos Health and Safety Program will also be required for some projects, to the approval of the APCD. The APCD monitors State air quality requirements and will be routed plans that are submitted for building permits for the project to insure compliance with all standards and requirements. APCD also responds in the field during construction on a complaint basis. Conclusion: As discussed in a letter dated April 24, 2003, from the Air Pollution Control District, the project exceeds the thresholds outlined in the Clean Air Plan for emissions during construction as well as during the operational phase. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce these potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels, consistent with the CAP. The project is also subject to the Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations and compliance with the requirements of the ATCM are required to be coordinated through the APCD. Monitoring of these requirements will include a review of plans submitted for construction permits,APCD review,and implementation of specific requirements through the Planned Development zoning process. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 6,7,8 through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a X candidate,sensitive,or special status specie's 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 6,7,8 other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X 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 6 biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident 6,8 or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation 6 Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved X local,regional,or state habitat conservation.plan? Have asubstantial adverse effect'on t6derally protected Crrr OF SAN Luis Oeispo 9 WmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 a -sa a Ah Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and SupporMWInformation Sources Sources r Pounriaur IessTt�an NO Significant Significant Significant Impact Inipact ER#24-03 (Broad Street Mixed Use) Issues h agauon incorporated wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation a) Two reports were prepared for the project, evaluating both plant and animal resources on the site. The first is a botanical study prepared by V.L. Holland,Ph.D.,which concludes that no rare or endangered plant species were found on the site. The report also concludes that no other areas on the site (other than the creek channel itself) include wetland or other riparian vegetation. The second report was prepared by Tenera Environmental and concludes that the habitat observed on the site has few or no characteristics that would meet the terrestrial habitat requirements of the special status species identified as potentially occurring in the area Aquatic habitat is also reviewed in the Tenera report. The creek on the project site does not have good enough water quality to support southwestern pond turtles or steelhead, which would have to cross significant barriers to get to the site. The creek does include suitable habitat for California Red-Legged Frog(CRLF),however,no frogs were observed during surveys. This fording is consistent with other CRLF studies of sites upstream and downstream. The Tenera report recommends mitigation measures for creek restoration that are incorporated into this Initial Study. b) The riparian area on the project site is classified as a degraded riparian corridor that is able to be restored or repaired. The project proposes significant enhancement of this corridor through planting c) The project does not conflict with any local ordinances protecting biological resources. No heritage trees are located on the project site and the project is consistent with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance. d) The project site is bordered by commercial land and has been developed with agricultural uses for over fifty years. According to the biological assessment prepared by Tenera, no wildlife corridor, native resident or migratory fish or wildlife are present on the project site. e) The project does not conflict with any HCP established in the City of San Luis Obispo. f) No wetlands are present on the project site outside of the creek channel itself. Mitigation Measures: 4. An exclusion fence delineating the required 20-foot setback shall be installed along each bank of the creek prior to construction. A qualified biological monitor shall be present during all construction or landscaping activities scheduled to take place within the barrier,to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager. 5. Erosion control measures shall be used to ensure that no sedimentation of the stream channel occurs as a result of construction activities. 6. Landscaping along the creek channel shall include the planting of native riparian trees such as sycamores and cottonwoods. These trees shall be maintained so that they eventually produce a canopy that will shade sections of the stream channel that are currently choked with cattails. This measure is intended to inhibit cattail growth and create more open water areas,which would improve habitat for southwestern pond turtles. 7. Invasive plant species within the riparian corridor shall be removed from the site and disposed of in a proper manner. 8. The Architectural Review Commission shall review the design and location of all fencing proposed adjacent to the creek to insure consistency with the Creek Setback Ordinance and the Community Design Guidelines. CITY OF SAN Luis Oetspo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL Ctn cwasT 2003 r% -53 r LLCIW IFTleni ti Issues, Discussion and Support. nformation Sources Sources p r Potentially Less 17wn xo Si cant Significant Significant Impact ER#24-03(Broad Street Mixed Use) issuer I,,sgation Impact incorporated Conclusion The project site is sensitive because of the creek resources on the site. The two reports prepared for the project to evaluate plant and animal species conclude that the project will no have significant impacts. Although creek restoration is proposed as part of the project, specific mitigation measures are recommended to insure that habitat areas are not damaged during construction of the project. The development of the property places a greater demand on the creek channel as the only remaining habitat area on the project site, and the proposed mitigation measures are necessary to insure that the creek becomes more suitable for the aquatic and terrestrial species that will rely on the creek corridor for refuge and predation. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in.the significance of a 9 X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 150645) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 10,11 X archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 10,11 X formal cemeteries? Evaluation a) A Historic Resource Assessment was prepared for the project by Chattel Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Inc. The buildings on the project site that are proposed for demolition are about 50 years old, and therefore must be evaluated for the potential that they represent historical resources. The report describes the existing buildings on the property, which include two small houses,three barns used for chicken farming(both eggs and meat)and a bridge. All of the buildings on the property were built between 1949 and 1959,as evidenced by aerial photography of the site. The historic report concludes that the buildings on site do not represent potentially significant resources because they doesn't meet any of the criteria for significance established by the State Historic Resources Commission. These criteria include: 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. 2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values. 4) Has yielded,or may be likely to yield,information important in prehistory or history. The historic evaluation also concludes that the property does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. The report discusses the history of development and ownership of the property and concludes that no person who is significant in the growth and development of the City can be associated with the property. The report focuses on the barns, which were used for chicken farming. The barn style used was one of the most common types of barns used for chicken faming, which was common on small family farms until the early 1960's. The property is located outside of the City's historic districts and the existing development on the site does not possess a quality of construction or represent a distinct style or quality of architecture that would justify its inclusion in the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. b), c), d) A Phase 1 Archeological Surface Survey was prepared for the site by Gibson's Archeological consulting. The report includes an evaluation of archival records and a survey of the property. The report includes a detailed discussion of the area and the types of resources that might be found on the property,but during the survey no intact or displaced prehistoric or historic archeological or cultural materials were found on the site. The project site does not include any unique geological features and no paleontological were observed during the surface survey. The site is outside of the City's burial sensitivity areas that are mapped and on file in the Community Development Department. tl`�i CITY OF SAN Luis OstsPo 1 I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEOKusT 2003 Httacnment d Issues, Discussion and SuppoeW, Information Sources sows FWAy Potentially Less Thum No Significant Significant SignificantIssues Impact ER #24-03(Broad Street Mixed Use) I,,u man Impact Incorporated Conclusion The project does not have the potential to impact historical resources because the buildings on the project site that are proposed for demolition do not appear to meet the criteria established for inclusion in the City's Inventory of Historic Resources and do not meet the criteria for significance established by the State Historic Resources Commission. This conclusion is based on the historical resource evaluation prepared by Chattel and the archeological survey prepared by Gibson's Archeological Consulting. The City's Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the project on March 22, 2003 and concurred with the findings of the historical reports for the project. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 12 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? e) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X State? _ Evaluation a) The project will not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plan established by the City. The orientation of the site allows for adequate solar exposure for the proposed units and the building designs are required to take advantage of natural day-lighting opportunities. The Architectural Review Commission typically reviews projects for orientation and energy efficiency and commonly requires modifications to achieve consistency with City energy goals and policies. b)Any development on the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Energy Conservation Element. The Energy Conservation Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling,water heating,and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code, which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Future development of this site must meet those standards. Existing code requires the use of solar water heating, unless the Chief Building Official determines that equivalent energy savings can be achieved through exceeding Energy Code standards. These requirements are reviewed at the time building permits are submitted for the project Skylights will also be required as a condition of project approval. c) There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State. Conclusion The project will not have an impact on energy or mineral resources. There are no known mineral resources on the site and-the project is required to meet or exceed State requirements for energy conservation in residential construction. This requirement is monitored through architectural review and through the building permit plan-check process. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 13 X effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: L" Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X mostecent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? IL Strong seismic.ground shaldng? X Seismic related t round failut_,'includin r uefacyon?_ X _ _Cadge __.. g 9_-.__ _ Crrr OF Sart Luis OetsPo 12 [NmAL STUDY ENvtRONMENTAL CHEcKLisT'2003 O� �J a Ah Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Suppor Information Sources sonar Y Potentially 1.«s Than No Si cant Significant Significant Impact Unless ER #24-03 (Broad Street Mixed Use) sae: Mitigation Impact incorporated 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 property? Evaluation a) 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 California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact,the Uniform Building Codes and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking and remain standing in an earthquake. According to a recently conducted geology study,the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault,which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time(the last 10,000 years),portions of the Los Osos fault are considered"active". Other active faults in the region include:the San Andreas,located about 30 miles to the northeast,the Nacimiento,located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone,located approximately 12 miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site,the site is located in an area of high seismic hazards due to the location of the San Andreas fault,which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. b) The project site is basically flat and development will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. c) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the site is in an area that is subject to the potential for liquefaction, and buildings on the site will be required to be built in accordance with the recommendations of a Soils Engineering Report. d) Expansive soils on the site are common in San Luis Obispo and recommendations included in a soilsYeport are sufficient to mitigate potential hazards from building in these areas. In general, the presence of expansive soils requires additional base for roadways and flat work and deeper footings for building foundations. Conclusion The project site is suitable for the proposed development and is not located along any known earthquake faults or units of unstable soil. Recommendations of a soils engineering report for the project will be sufficient to mitigate any potential geology and soils impacts. No mitigation is required. 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 19 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) 'EmJt hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X �� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKussTT 2003n Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Suppon. nformation Sources Sources PdWQy Potentially I=Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact nless ER#24-03 (Broad Street Mixed Use) Issues >wtigation Impact Incorporated 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 emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, 14 X substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659625 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 15 X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the 13 X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 13 X or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a),b),c) The project does not involve the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials. Commercial uses on the project site will require use permit approval and conditions of approval would apply to any incompatibilities between residential uses and commercial uses(such as doctor's offices,which routinely handle biologically hazardous materials). As a residential project with compatible commercial uses, a significant hazard will not be created through reasonably foreseeable upset conditions. The project is about t/a mile from a proposed school site in the Orcutt Expansion Area, however,the project will not involve hazardous emissions or include handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances or waste. d) The project site is less than i/ mile from the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Hazardous and acutely hazardous materials, substances and waste are routinely transported through San Luis Obispo along the railroad tracks. In general, the potential hazards are not considered significant enough to prevent the development of residential land along the tracks. In the City of San Luis Obispo,the railroad goes directly through several neighborhoods. This project is separated from the tracks by the Sacramento Drive right-of-way and by developed property on the east side of the street. According to the City's Fire Department,existing emergency response plans are adequate to address the potential impacts to future residents of this project site. Another important consideration at this project site is Electromagnetic Frequency (EMF). Two sources of EMF at this site include the PG&E transmission lines, which run along the northern property line, and a wireless communications antenna installation on the transmission tower adjacent to the Sacramento Drive sidewalk. Transmission Lines — According to PG&E, the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Department of Health Services, exposure to magnetic fields from utility electric facilities is not a potential health hazard. In June, 1999, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences completed a $60 million research program, which concluded that the probability of exposure to EMF being a health hazard is small. However, there are no direct studies available that prove the health effects of EMF, positive or negative. PG&E makes information available to its customers, such as a question and answer packet and a flier that compares EMF exposure from utility lines to that of common kitchen appliances. It would appear from the information provided by PG&E that, if EMF is a problem,there are plenty of sources of greater concern than utility lines. Because there are no numerical limits for EMF exposure due to utility lines, the project cannot be evaluated relative to any standard. tl ar CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 a - Sl mpnt 6 Issues, Discussion and Suppoi•,. nformation Sources Soarcesr Potentially �'�° No Sigm cant Significant Significant Impact Unpact ER #24-03(Broad Street Mixed Use) sae: n�u�non Incorporated Telecommunications Antennas—The existing antennas located on the transmission tower were installed during spring 2004. The U.S Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluates its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86 `Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields." Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999,"Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields,3 KHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical exposure limits.These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons,regardless of age,gender,size, or health. The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground level due to the proposed Sprint operation by itself is calculated to be 0.05mW/cm2, which is 5% of the applicable public exposure limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case"assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual power density levels. Based on this limited exposure level relative to the standard, the impact on future residents and employees on the site should be considered less than significanL e) The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites. f) The Airport Land Use Plan(ALUP)for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport indicates that the project site is in an area where aircraft operate between 500 and 1000 feet above ground level. As a method of addressing safety, specific policies contained in the ALUP limit residential density on the project.site to six dwelling units per acre. Non-residential density. is limited to 150 people per acre. Land area may not be double-counted for both residential and non-residential density. Based on preliminary input from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), the applicant has revised the project plans to eliminate approximately 21 residential units from the initial phase of construction. This reduction brings the total density down to 5.67 density units per acre. (For the purpose of evaluating the project for consistency with the ALUP,the site area is considered,the gross acreage of the site, including up to the centerline of the adjacent streets and PG&E easement Each unit is counted as 1 density unit,regardless of the number of bedrooms.) With the 21 units eliminated, the total project residential density is is 5.67 units per acre, consistent with the requirements of the ALUP. Project plans currently show the potential for 21 additional dwelling units to be located above the office/retail buildings with a future phase of construction. The Airport Land Use Commission is currently reviewing a series of amendments to the ALUP that could allow for greater residential density on the project site if certain conditions are met. The amendments also allow for blending residential and commercial uses on the same site. The project site may also be developed to a higher residential density if the"referred local action"covers a larger area,and the cumulative residential density in that area-with the new units added in-is less than the 6 dwelling unit per acre standard. In the draft amendment of the ALUP,the project site is located in Safety Area S-2. Shortly after the ALUC adopts the amendment,the City may refer all of Safety Area S-2 to the ALUC for a consistency determination for the build-out potential under current zoning. As part of the referral, it is anticipated that the City would propose General Plan Amendments and zone changes to reduce allowable residential development in certain areas, such as in the Manufacturing zone, to insure on-going consistency with the revised ALUP. An accounting procedure would also be proposed to insure that the total number of units,in the event of future rezoning,never exceeds the maximum allowable under the ALUP for Safety Area S-2. A similar method would be proposed to insure consistency with the non-residential density requirement. Currently, the segment of Safety Area S-2 that is north and east of the airport property is developed with a residential density of approximately 3.26 dwelling units per acre. In-City open space accounts for 15.9% of the total land in Safety Area 2,and rural land in the Greenbelt outside of the City Limits (excluding the Orcutt Area) includes a much larger area Even though residential density in this segment of Safety Area S-2 is currently far lower than the ALUP standard,the theoretical build-out under current City zoning would allow residential density to exceed 6 units per acre. Until the ALUC adopts the proposed amendment and the City makes changes to its General Plan and zoning to insure on-going consistency, a potentially significant impact exists, and mitigation of the potential impact is required. A mitigation measure is recommended to prevent construction of the "future phase" until the ALUC determines that an action on the City's part to approve the increased density is consistent with the ALUP. The project is also subject to real estate disclosure and avigation easement requirements, CITY OF SAN Luis Owspo 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS�eT-220/03 a AAttachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Suppo . _ information Sources Sources PW ty potentially Less Than No significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless ER#24-03(Broad Street Mixed Use) Mitigations Incorporated per the ALUP. g) The project has been reviewed by the City's Fire Marshall, who has determined that the proposed development will not impair or physically interfere with the implementation of any emergency response or evacuation plan. h) According to the Safety Element of the General Plan, the project site is in an area that has a low probability of wildland fire hazard. Mitigation Measures: 9. Construction of more than 61 residential units on the project site is subject to City approval of an Administrative Use Permit The purpose of the use permit will be to evaluate consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. The use permit will be referred to the ALUC, unless prior changes to the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance that are approved by the ALUC make such a referral unnecessary. 10. The applicant shall be required to submit proof that a real estate disclosure form and an avigation easement have been recorded, or are in the process of being recorded, prior to building permit issuance for any development on the project site. Conclusion The project does not generate, or cause the exposure of, any known hazardous materials. The project site is developed with two residential buildings and there is no known contamination on the project site. The site has a low potential for wildland fire hazards. The project has been designed to comply with the density limitations of the Airport Land Use Plan. There are no potentially significant impacts with respect to hazards. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALrrY. Would theproject: .i)'`UioUw..any water quality standards or waste discharge X req#irements? 16 li) Substantially deplete grdundwater_supPlies or.interfere subis antially with groundwafec r�liacge such that there wo d-tv anetdefiei(in aquifer volume or-a•lowering of the local X grottift2ter table level(e g.The production rate ofpre-existing,. ge@rby,vells would drop to alevel which-would.not support . exisfing land uses for which permits have tieenranted)? cj Gteafe or contribute runoffff*ater which would-ezceed;the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage,systems or . provide�additional sources of runoff into surface,waters. 17 X (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 arei in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or 16,17 X siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or . _areIt in a mariner which wbuid result in substantial flooding. 16,17 X onsite or offsite? . if) 'Place housing within i4004ear,fl6od hazard area as mapped on'; a:Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or]R Insurance Rate Map: X ofrb&i lood hazard delineat on:inap� -* X �° *Place`:'v_urthia a 100-yeat;flood�azard area:strctures which �- :: �tvould unpe�e or redirect flood.^tlows� tri CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INmAL STUDY ENvIRONMEMAL CHEciaisT 2003 Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supports...; Information Sources Sourc=es Pott`qty Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ess Impact ER#24-03 (Broad Street Mixed Use) Issues Mitt tion Inco rated 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, X temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? Evaluation a), b), The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. All of the residences will be served by the City's sewer system. The project will be served with water by the City's Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources. c), d), Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's Waterways Management Plan. This plan was recently adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the City's watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires the project to be designed so that post-development site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off. This can be achieved through a combination of detention and use of pervious surfaces to increase water absorption on-site. The Preliminary Drainage Report for the project has been reviewed by Public Works staff and the proposed on-site grading and the detention basin are designed in compliance with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan. A preliminary report is required to insure that changes in the size of the detention basin will not occur with preparation of the final report. The Public Works Department has determined that the size of the proposed detention basin is sufficient to avoid drainage impacts,such as flooding,on-site or downstream. e), t), g), h), i) The project site is not within the boundaries of an area subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm and will not impede or re-direct any such water flows. The project will introduce typical pollutants to the creek system by carrying water from impervious surfaces,such as driveways,through the stormdrain system and into the creeks of the local watershed. The amount of new impervious surfaces is significant, and drains that empty into the creek will be required to be developed with oil separators and bio-filtration mechanisms to maintain water quality. Conclusion The project will be required to comply with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan, which is a plan that had been adopted by the City for the purpose of mitigating potentially significant impacts to water quality and drainage in the City's watershed. Compliance with the requirements of the plan are sufficient to mitigate any potentially significant impacts of the project in the area of water quality and hydrology. The project has been evaluated by the Public Works Department and is designed in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan. A more detailed evaluation of hydrology will occur when construction drawings are submitted for the proposed development. No further mitigation is required. 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 X community conservationplans? Evaluation a) The project site does not conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project is located in an area designated Services and Manufacturing on the Land Use Element Map,and the site is zoned Service Commercial(C-S-S). Mixed-use projects are allowed in the C-S zone provided that the specific requirements listed in Section 17.08.072 of the Zoning Regulations are met. Use permit approval is required by the Planning Commission. Cay OF SAN LUIS Owspo 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKLt(T((2003 1 —UD Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Support.. a Information Sources sow y pOH" y t Tban No Significant Significant Significant Impact Broad Street Mixed Use Issues Unless Impact ER#24-03 ( ) Mitigation Inco tated b) The proposed development project will be surrounded by retail, light industrial, and manufacturing uses. The project proposes to locate a mixed-use neighborhood within an existing industrial area. Existing residential neighborhoods are located in proximity to the project site, including Tract 929 located south of Industrial Lane, and the Willow Creek mobile home park, located east of the railroad tracks. The use of this industrial land for a large residential development is an important land use decision that will be made by the Planning Commission and the City Council. However, there are no significant environmental impacts to Land Use and Planning associated with the development project. c) The project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. Conclusion The project will be developed with the type of improvements anticipated by the General Plan and Zoning Regulations for a mixed use project and will not create any environmental impacts in the area of land use and planning. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 18,19 X Element,or general new levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 18,19 X vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 18,19 two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the X project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation a) The General Plan requires that indoor spaces in residential projects have a maximum noise exposure level of 45 dB. The railroad and major roadways are studied in the Noise Element, and expected noise levels at City build-out have been established. The Noise Element maps show that the project site is not impacted by noise levels from the railroad tracks. However,transportation related noise levels at the 60dB level extend approximately 260 feet onto the project site from Broad Street. The proposed duplex and triplex units east of the creek are over 350 feet from the roadway and are not impacted. The proposed residential lofts on the west side of the creek, would require some noise level reduction to insure General Plan consistency. Other issues with respect to noise include operations of adjacent businesses, including the auto dealership approved for the property to the north of the project site,the existing Level 3 Communications facility, and the UPS terminal to the south of the project site. Using Figure 2 of the Noise Element(General Plan Digest), staff has determined that a noise study for the project is required. A noise study was prepared by Krause Engineering Services in January of 2003 and submitted with the planning application for the project. The mitigation measures recommended in the Noise Study are listed below. These mitigation measures are sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts from surrounding noise sources. b) During construction, there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. If noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds,the property owner would be subject to possible citations. �r CITY OF SAN Luis 08ispo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKt tsT`12003 ca—�1 1 1�:4n V11111V1 `• V Issues, Discussion and Suppor,.. Information Sources Sources Po.. ..Uy potentially Less7ban No Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless ER#24-03(Broad Street Mixed Use) Issues Mitigations Inco rated c),d) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibration. The project is within the Airport Land Use Plan area and is is subject to noise from aircraft operations. The site is located within the 50 dB airport noise contour and no specific mitigation for noise is required, other than the appropriate real estate disclosures and avigation easements as required by the Airport Land Use Commission. Mitigation Measures: 11. The following construction methods shall be employed to achieve a Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of 20 dB for transportation related noise sources: a. Air conditioning or mechanical ventilation systems shall be provided as recommended by the noise study so that doors and windows can be kept fully closed daring noisy times. b. The project shall be constructed with windows and sliding glass doors that have low air leak rate frames (less than .5 cfm per foot of crack length,per standard test). c. All exterior doors shall be of solid-core construction,with full perimeter weather stipping and threshold seals. 12. A 17 dB noise level reduction is required to mitigate the noise level created by the fan at Level 3. This level of noise reduction can be achieved if the existing iron security fence that surrounds the exterior generators is modified to become a noise barrier on the south and east sides. The applicant shall replace these portions of the existing fence with a sound barrier wall of masonry construction and height of about IS to 20 feet. 13. Because of the proximity between the UPS facility parking lot and the nearest proposed residences, a continuous sound barrier along the sites common property line with the UPS property is required to achieve the required 10 dB of noise reduction. The design of the noise barrier shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission prior to action on this Initial Study,to insure that the proposed wall can be implemented in a manner consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines. Conclusion The project proposes to place a new residential neighborhood in an area that is subject to noise levels in excess of City standards for residential development. As a result, mitigation measures are recommended to insure compliance with the General Plan and Noise Ordinance standards. Some of the potential impacts of the project are mitigated by design: the majority of the dwelling units in the project occur away from the major surrounding streets, reducing future residents noise exposure. Proposed commercial buildings along Broad Street and Sacramento Drive are oriented in manner to further screen interior residential uses from transportation related noise. However, the proximity of a major cooling system at the Level 3 facility to the north,and the UPS terminal to the south,require noise barriers to be constructed. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the miect: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other X infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? Evaluation a),b)The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth into the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is bordered by urban development and the development of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of development is �i CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2003 Attar, Issues, Discussion and Support..,-Information Sources Sources pots iy potentially L.ess7ban No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#24-03 (Broad Street Mixed Use) Issues Ivfti ation impact Incorporated encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation and parks. The project site is presently undeveloped, except for the remnants of chicken-farming operation. As a result, significant numbers of people will not be displaced by the project. Conclusion The population growth created by the project is considered to be less than significant since the development is on an existing, parcel of land that is zoned to allow for the type of density proposed. Development of the project site is within the population estimates 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? 21 X b) Police protection? 21 X c) Schools? X d) Parks? 21 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 21 X Other public facilities? 21 X Evaluation a) b), d), e), f) No potential impacts have been identified to any public services because of the scale of the project and its location within a developed portion of the City. c) The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance for each residence. Conclusion The project has been routed to City Departments for review and comments on the proposal. As part of each routing, the reviewing department is required to certify that serving the project will not result in a deficiency to any City facility or resource. All reviewing departments have indicated their ability to serve this project. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks of 22 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? Evaluation a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However,given the size of the project and the expected number of residents, no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of this site. Park Land In-Lieu fees will be collected, with credit given for the existing lot,to insure adequate provision of park facilities for the new residents of the project,per existing City policy. CF Y OF SAN Luis OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENvIRONMENTAL QiEcKusT 2003 CO— ,c.03 Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Support.. , Information Sources Scarar Poc Ally I potenr " No Significant Significant Significant Impact unless inipact ER#24-03 (Broad Street Mixed Use) Issues Mitigation Incorporated b) The project does not include the construction of recreational facilities beyond small, private, open space areas and parks for residents of the site. The construction of these facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment because of their small scale. Conclusion Park and recreation facility demand will increase incrementally,and not significantly,with the development of the project. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the miect: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 23,24 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 24 standard established by the county congestion management X agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp 21 X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 21 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 15 X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation a), b) The project will incrementally contribute to an increase in traffic along the Broad Street corridor and surrounding streets: The applicant has submitted a Traffic and Circulation Analysis, which was reviewed and accepted by the City's Transportation Division. The report indicates that surrounding streets are operating at an acceptable Level of Service(LOS) and that the existing street network can adequately accommodate the project's anticipated vehicle trips. The General Plan says that the lowest acceptable LOS for arterial streets is LOS D. After the project is constructed, no change to the level of service is projected for the Industrial Way intersection with Broad Street. The LOS at the CapitolioBroad Street intersection would drop from LOS C to LOS D. While this LOS is still acceptable,the applicant will be required to participate in the cost of installing a signal at this intersection in the future as a condition of project approval. Overall,the number of trips generated by the project is anticipated to be significantly less than if a large business park were developed on the site. A business park with a total of 320,000 square feet of floor area would generate approximately 4083 vehicle trips per day. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 2412 vehicle trips per day. c), d) City staff has determined that the driveway configuration proposed for the project is acceptable and will provide sufficient visibility from and toward vehicles entering and exiting the project site. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the private drive configuration proposed for the project and determined that the site can be adequately accessed by emergency vehicles. The Fire Department has indicated their ability to serve this project in its present design. e) Parking for the project includes surface level parking in lots and along the internal streets of the residential portion of the site. Each residential unit has on-site, covered parking. Garages are also provided to accommodate some parking for the residents of the future lofts. The parking provided on the project site meets the City's parking requirements,assuming that a 30% reduction in the overall parking requirement is granted for mixed-use parking, per the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.16.020). If the 30% parking reduction is granted, parking spaces on the project site could not be reserved for any particular use or business,and cannot be marked. Crry of SAN Luts Oetsao 21 INITwt.SruOY ENvtRONMENTAL CmcKLisT 2003 A- �A Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Support. , Information Sources Soap eot.- Ally Potmdauy Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER#24-03 (Broad Street Mixed Use) Mitigation Incorporated The total number of parking spaces for the project is of concern because on-street parking on Sacramento Drive will be eliminated when the project is built-out and bike lanes are installed in the street. The proposed dwellings do not have driveways, and as a result, it is essential that parking in garages be kept free and left open for vehicles. A condition of approval will be added to the Use Permit to insure that garages are maintained free of storage or other uses that would prevent the parking of cars as shown on the project plans. f) Each unit within the project will include garages that will be able to accommodate bicycle storage in addition to parked vehicles. Residents of the project will have access to transit stops on Broad Street. g) The Airport Land Use Commission has determined that the project is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. Conclusion The traffic study for the report has been reviewed and accepted by the Public Works Department No significant impacts to traffic are identified in the report. The applicant will be required to participate in the installation of a traffic signal at the Capitolio Way/Broad Street intersection as a condition of approval of the proposed Use Permit Overall, the project is anticipated to generate 2412 vehicle trips per day,which is significantly less than for a large business park. 16.UTMIITIES 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 significantenvironmentaleffects? c) liave sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X ,from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded Waw needed?. d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X wl ich terves ormay serve the project that it has adegoate capacityto serve ttie project's projected demand in additida to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted Capacity to X accommodate the project's solid•viaste.disposal needs? -) Qon#y—with:federal;;state,and local statutes am-TegulafionsX .related to solid waste? Evaluation a), b) This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer. Comments note that the project is subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply,treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. c) The City Water&Wastewater Management Element projects the City water needs at its ultimate build-out of 56,000 people.The project site is included in the anticipated build-out,because it was in the Urban Reserve at the time the element was adopted. Each unit in the project will have an annual water usage between.30 and .60 depending on the amount of irrigated land proposed. For the total project,the annual water usage is estimated at 7.2 acre feet per year(.45*16 units). The 2002 Water Resources Report indicates that there is currently 304 acre feet of water available to allocate. 152 acre feet is reserved for in-fill development(development within the 1994 City Limits). d) The City wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve this development. The existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the development. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to CRY OF SAN LUIS Oetspo 22 INITIAL STVDy ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ca - 65- Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Support. , Information Sources sources Pot, --ty Potentiauy Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#2403 (Broad Street Mixed Use) Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Subdivision improvement plans and building plans will be checked for compliance with UPC standards. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project. e),f) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989(AB939)shows that Califomians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90%of this waste goes to landfills,posing a threat to groundwater,air quality,and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50%(from 1989 levels)by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project,consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element,recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application.The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project,consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Conclusion No impacts have been identified relative to utilities or service systems. The City has recently adopted a solid waste recycling ordinance to insure recycling of construction debris.No further mitigation is required. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of _ the -dr penods of California history or prebisto ? Without mitigation,the project could have the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Page 3. b),Dues if'ie project have impacts:that are individually litnited,but tsmttilatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" _means that the-incremental effects of a project areconsiderable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, X the effects of other-current.projects,and the effects of probable - �:_ •:firhire ro ects � .. - - -- . .: _: '. . . The impacts identified in this initial study are specific to this project and would not be categorized as c latively significanL c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause siitistantial adverse effects on human'beings,either directly or X indirectly? With the into oration of mitigation measures,the project will not result in substantial adverse i acts on humans. 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 followin items: a Earlier ansl_ysisused Identif y earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The San Luis Obispo Land Use Plan Element update and Final EIR can be found at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department at 990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California. b)':Impacts adegtiately-addressed..Identify which effects from the above:checklist were within the scope of and sdequately analyzed in an earlier.document pursuant to�applicable legal standards,and state whether.sitch effects were addressed by. -._.miti tion measures based.on!lie-earlier.an, sis CrrY OF SAN Luis Oatspo 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 A-QQ Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Support. , Information Sources Sources Pau ly Potentially Iran Irian NO Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #24-03 (Broad Street Mixed Use) Issues unless impact Mitigation Incorporated_ Not applicable. 0 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. Not applicable. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO Circulation Element,Figure 6,Scenic Roadways Ma 2. Observations made during site visits to property and neighborhood 3. GIS Data downloaded from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program website: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fnunp/ 4. Property Title Report on file in the Community Development Department 5. Air Pollution Control District,Clean Air Plan,April 2003 6. City of SLO Open Space Element,Table 1 and Table 2,Creek Map,and Figure 6,Open Space Ma 7. Botanical Study,Prepared by V.L.Holland,PTLD., 11-12-02 8. Biological Assessment,Tenera Environmental, 11-19-02 9. Historic Resource Assessment prepared by Chattel Architecture,Planning and Preservation,Inc.,May 2003. 10. City of SLO Informational Map Atlas,Burial Sensitivity Map and Archeological Resource Map 11. Results of Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey,November 4,2002,Robert Gibson 12. City of SLO Energy Conservation Element 13. City of SLO Safety Element 14, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report,SECOR International,9-6-02. 15. San Luis Obispo Airport,Airport Land Use Plan 16. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan 17. Preliminary Drainage Report,Prepared by John Wallace and Associates,April 2004. 18. City of SLO Noise Element,Figures 4b and 5b 19. Krause Engineering Services,Noise Study, 1-29-03 20. City of SLID Land Use Inventory,Georgraphic Information System 21. Development Review Team Project Comments,on file in the Community Development Department 22. City of SLO Parks and Recreation Element 23. Institute of Traffic Engineers,Trip Generation Manual,6 Edition 24. Traffic and Circulation Analysis,Stephen A.Orosz,PTOE,April 2004 The environmental studies prepared specifically for this project are available for public review or purchase and are kept on file in the Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street. These documents include: Historic Analysis—Chattel Inc., 12-4-02 Archaeological Phase 1 —Bob Gibson, 114-02 Bio Report, Botanical—V.L. Holland, Ph.D., 11-12-02 Bio Report, Wildlife—Tenera Environmental, 11-19-02 Preliminary Drainage Report—John Wallace and Associates, April 2004 Traffic and Circulation—Orosz Engineering Group, 5-14-04 Acoustical Analysis—Krause Engineering, 1-29-03 Phase I Environmental—SECOR International, 9-6-02 Soils Engineering—Earth Systems Pacific, 1-23-03 `moi CITY OF SAN L.uts OBtsPo 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Attachment 6 REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 1. Mitigation—Air Quality Construction Phase Mitigation Measures: a. All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. c. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. d. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. e. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. f. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders. are used. g. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose-materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. j. install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. • Monitoring Program: Construction phase air quality mitigation measures are monitored by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), through a complaint based enforcement system. The requirements listed above are noted on the project plans and the City Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector for the project are instructed to contact APCD in the event of a probably violation. Members of the public can also call APCD if they are concerned about dust or other emissions from a construction site. i� CFTY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 25 (NmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 (.i A --�Ltacnment b 2. Mitigation—Air Ouality a. For residential units, provide all of the following: i. Increase the building energy efficiency rating by. 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements. This can be accomplished in a number of ways (increasing attic, wall or floor insulation, etc.); ii. Provide secure on-site bicycle parking for multi-family residential developments; and iii. Build new homes with internal wiring/cabling that allows telecommuting, teleconferencing, and teleleaming to occur simultaneously in at least 3 locations in each home. b. For retail/office uses, provide all of the following: i. Increase the building energy efficiency rating by 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements. This can be accomplished in a number of ways (increasing attic, wall or floor insulation,etc.). ii. Provide on-site bicycle parking. One bicycle parking space for every 10 car parking spaces is considered appropriate; iii. Provide on-site eating,refrigeration and food vending facilities to reduce lunchtime trips. iv. Provide preferential carpool and vanpool parking; and, v. Provide shower and locker facilities to encourage employees to bike and/or walk to work, typically one shower and three lockers for every 25 employees. vi. As indicated on page II-8 of the project description, implement a Transportation Choices Program. The applicant should work with the Transportation Choices Coalition partners for free consulting services on how to start and maintain a program. Contact SLO Regional Rideshare at 541-2277. vii.Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. viii.Use high efficiency, gas or solar water heaters. ix. Use built-in energy efficient.appliances. x. Use double-paned windows. • Monitoring Program: These items are monitored through Architectural Review, where many of these items are listed as conditions of approval. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department also will review plans submitted with a building permit application to insure that the requirements listed above are noted where appropriate. Final monitoring of these requirements comes during the final inspection of the project, prior to occupancy. On-going monitoring can be implemented during reviews of the Use Permit for the project, or during reviews of subsequent use permit applications. 3. Mitigation—Air Quality The project site is located in a Naturally Occurring Asbestos candidate area. 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 state and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure(ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 26 INRULL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKuST 2003 a- V1 Attachment o^ and Surface Mining Operations, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. These requirements may include but are not limited to 1) an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan which must be approved by the District before construction begins, and 2) an Asbestos Health and Safety Program will also be required for some projects, to the approval of the APCD. The APCD monitors State air quality requirements and will be routed plans that are submitted for building permits for the project to insure compliance with all standards and requirements. APCD also responds in the field during construction on a complaint basis. • Monitoring Program: Building permits for the project will not be issued until the APCD has "signed-off'on the applicant's Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program. 4. Mitigation—Biological Resources An exclusion fence delineating the required 20-foot setback shall be installed along each bank of the creek prior to construction. A qualified biological monitor shall be present during all construction or landscaping activities scheduled to take place within the barrier, to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager. • Monitoring Program: The Planning Division of the Community Development Department will review plans submitted with a building permit and require his mitigation measure to be clearly printed on all plan sheets that show any portion of the creek. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector will also monitor this requirement during daily inspections of the project site. 5. Mitigation—Biological Resources Erosion control measures shall be used to ensure that no sedimentation of the stream channel occurs as a result of construction activities. • Monitoring Program: The Planning Division of the Community Development Department will review plans submitted with a building permit and require his mitigation measure to beclearlyprinted on all plan sheets that show any portion of the creek. The Public Works Department will review all grading plans to insure implementation of BMPS's for soil erosion. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector will monitor these requirements during daily inspections of the project site. 6. Mitigation—Biological Resources Landscaping along the creek channel shall include the planting of native riparian trees such as sycamores and cottonwoods. These trees shall be maintained so that they eventually produce a canopy that will �`-9 CrrY OF SANLuis OBISpo 27 MmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 A� 1,o At_achment 6 shade sections of the stream channel that are currently choked with cattails. This measure is intended to inhibit cattail growth and create more open water areas, which would improve habitat for southwestern pond turtles. • Monitoring Program: The final restoration landscaping plan for the creek will be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager who will also make a final inspection of the project to insure that the landscaping has been installed per plan, prior to project occupancy. 7. Mitigation—Biological Resources Invasive plant species within the riparian corridor shall be removed from the site and disposed of in a proper manner. • Monitoring Program: The final restoration landscaping plan for the creek will be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager who will also make a final inspection of the project to insure that the landscaping has been installed per plan, prior to project occupancy. 8. Mitigation—Biological Resources The Architectural Review Commission shall review the design and location of all fencing proposed adjacent to the creek to insure consistency with the Creek Setback Ordinance and the Community Design Guidelines. • Monitoring Program: The applicant will be required to prepare a detailed fencing plan prior to final ARC review of the project. The ARC will be asked to review the design and location of the fence, consistent with any other mitigation measures or conditions of approval required by the City Council. 9. Mitigation—Hazards (Airport) Construction of more than 61 residential units on the project. site is subject to City. approval of an Administrative Use Permit. The purpose of the use permit will be to evaluate consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. The use permit will be referred to the ALUC, unless prior changes to the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance that are approved by the ALUC make such a referral unnecessary. • Monitoring Program: Prior to issuance of building permits for more than 61 residential units on the project site, the City must approve an Administrative Use Permit. The Use Permit is needed to insure consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. The Use Permit will be forwarded to the Airport Land Use Commission for a �c! CITY Of SAN Luis OBISPO .28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 �� Y L consistency determination prior to issuance of any building permit that would allow construction of more than 61 units. 10. Mitigation—Hazards (Airport) The applicant shall be required to submit proof that a real estate disclosure form and an avigation easement have been recorded., or are in the process of being recorded, prior to building permit issuance for any development on the project site.. • Monitoring Program: These documents will be reviewed by the Planning Division of the Community Development Department before permits are issued for construction. 11. Mitigation Noise The following construction methods shall be employed to achieve a Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of 20 dB for transportation related noise sources: a. Air conditioning or mechanical ventilation systems shall be provided as recommended by the noise study so that doors and windows can be kept fully closed during noisy times. b. The project shall be constructed with windows and sliding glass doors that have low air leak rate frames (less than .5 cfm per foot of crack length, per standard test). c. All exterior doors shall be of solid-core construction, with full perimeter weather slipping and threshold seals. • Monitoring Program: These requirements are routinely monitored by the Building Division of the Community Development Department during their review of plans submitted with a building permit application. 12. Mitigation—Noise A 17 dB noise level reduction is required to mitigate the noise level created by the fan at Level 3. This level of noise reduction can be achieved if the existing iron security fence that surrounds the exterior generators is modified to become a noise barrier on the south and east sides. The applicant shall replace these portions of the existing fence with a sound barrier wall of masonry construction and height of about 18 to 20 feet. • Monitoring Program: The requirement is monitored by Architectural Review of the wall design and a detailed review of building plans to insure consistency with the noise reduction requirements. The mitigation measure will be made a condition of project approval and the wall will have to be completely installed before occupancy of the project is permitted. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 INRIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 a - ()a. �-, Attachment 6 13. Mitigation—Noise Because of the proximity between the UPS facility parking lot and the nearest proposed residences, a continuous sound barrier along the sites common property line with the UPS property is required to achieve the required 10 dB of noise reduction. The design of the noise barrier shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission prior to action on this Initial Study, to insure that the proposed wall can be implemented in a manner consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines. • Monitoring Program: The requirement is monitored by Architectural Review of the wall design and a detailed review of building plans to insure consistency with the noise reduction requirements. The mitigation measure will be made a condition of project approval and the wall will have to be completely installed before occupancy of the project is permitted. �r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKusT 2003 Attachment 7 Attachment 7 - Correspondence submitted by J.J. Parsons o�•rl'`-C LAttachment 7 J..7. Par:. .s 3641 Sacramento Drive #16 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 June 16, 2004 Michael Codron Community Development Dept . 990 Palm St . City of San Luis Obispo Re: 3592 Broad St . , San Luis Obispo Dear Michael, You are in receipt of my previously forwarded letter dated September 3 , 2003 . The facts regarding this project still remain the same except now the developers have chosen to further increase the density of the residential component and even further reduce much -needed parking. The dangers to the incoming children have only increased. By my opinion, your approval of this project will likely add more than 100 children to this industrial area. A safe environment for our young children to grow up in is paramount, and that does not mean some truck stop parking lot . Nor does it mean that all the existing neighbors should bear the enormous burden of child care_ it is of critical importance that you understand that my project, located not 300 feet from the proposed site, is AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE TO CHILDREN. It was built as such, pursuant to demands made upon myself by the then lead agency, THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, which required me to utilize such attractive nuisances as giant landscape boulders, and other such nuisances as water storage tanks 16 feet tall. Over the 15 years of day-to-day management I have come to know, only too well, how kids love to play upon such objects of danger. Our on-site curbing has provided them much enjoyment for after hours skateboard jumping and bicycle jumping. I know from 15 years of personal experience what an attractive nuisance that this project can be. I do not like it, but that is what THEY told me I had to build, and that is what I did build according to those requirements FOR INDUSTRIAL ZONED WAREHOUSING. The purpose of this letter is to encourage you to REDIRECT the developers to fully build out the site in a commercial and industrial manner consistent with the existing surrounding zoning. If the City has come of the opinion that we need housing then let's put it in the appropriately zoned areas compatible with high density and medium density housing where the children can grow up in a safe and child-friendly environment . Perhaps I might suggest the Orcutt area annexation just across the railroad tracks to the North or perhaps the Margarita area annexation just across the highway to the South. Both are already clearly residential in nature, and both areas are capable of providing a much greater number of safe housing units for children, rather than a small island in sea of industrial and commercial usage. Creation of additional student housing, this far from the campus, is not an appropriate use either. One would hope that the City would consider the ensuing liability that potentially will follow. Just who will be expected to pay for such shings as security fences, ,gates, a tAtta� ment 7 additional personnel necessary to protect our properties and our property rights against naive trespassers? Can you not envision the dramatic number of phone calls to the Police Department and the Fire Department when these young trespassers injure themselves? Consider the COST TO THE CITY to provide these additional services for such mix-matched zoning. Considering all the constructive notice the City has been given, do you think that we, the industrial neighbors, are not going to name the City in any lawsuits that we are forced to file to protect ourselves? The developers have created all these shell LLC' s to conceal ownership and to shield themselves from any further liability, so in the end it will be local neighbors, the victims and the City all fighting it out, AT OUR EXPENSE, and the developers will be living their comfortable life styles in Santa Barbara, far from here. Think about that before you grant them licenses for their profits . Sincerely, a concerned and Dramatically Impacted Neighbor, pC • �CP J.J. Parson- Attachment 7 September 3 , 2003 3641 Sacrament-o Drive #16 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SLO City Planning Commission 990 Palm St . San Luis Obispo, Ca . 93401 Re : 3592 Broad St . Mixed Use Development PD 24-03 I �� Honorable Commisioners . CC".• ". ' . I write to you to express my concerns as an adjacent property owner located 250 feet to the East (on the other side of UPS) . Since 1986, I have developed a multi-tenant Industrial Warehouse complex which consumes a site slightly larger than 5 Acres in size . During my development plan approval and subsequent construction throughout 1989 and 1990, the area was zoned appropriately Industrial, which is, without question, what the zoning in that surrounding area certainly conforms to. In 1993 (or therabouts) the City decided to annex this 70 acre area which includes the property which is now the Marigold Shopping Center. Just because the City decided to re-name the zoning to Service Commercial which would appear to accomodate the creation of a shopping center, does not change the fact that the basic mixture is almost purely Light Industrial other than the Shopping Center. The Sacramento Drive, Industrial Way and Capitolio areas are, and always have been, Industrial in nature . In fact, this area is really the only significant Industrial Zoned area within the SLO City limits . Trucking facilities related to dairy products and food distribution facilities, factories that make electronics assemblies, wholesale paper manufacturing plants, power relay, electronics booster and power generation stations, small scale manufacturing, earthmoving and heavy equipment contractors storage yards, welding and steel fabrication, warehousing, bus and transportation repair yards, drive axle, transmission and body repair shops, and wholesale distribution facilities are just some of the many surrounding businesses that clearly fall within that industrial zoning that now predominates the area. Call it whatever you want to, the mix is still clearly Light Industrial . With regards to the above proposed development located upon a site of only 10 acres, which is proposed to include, not only 30, 000 square feet of commercial space with parking, in addition to, and although there is some question with regard to the actual number of proposed Residential housing units (somewhere between 54 and 70) , my fundamental planning background would cause me to recall that for every family unit there exists 2 .4 children per couple. So, if you were to take., say 60 housing units and multiply that by ' 2 .4 children, just exactly where are those 144 children supposed to play? Where will those 144 skateboards and those 144 bicycles and big wheels end up? Perhaps under the BIG wheels of all those BIG UPS trucks next door? Or perhaps the kids could just walk, bike, skate or crawl another 250 feet down the sidewalk and play at the big brown metal day-care center next door. My tenants could certainly teach all those kids about sandblasting, welding, steel fabrication, trucking and service distribution, how to operate some of the 20 forklifts on-site, how-to auto repair, operations of machine shops, powder coating, cabinet making, signmaking, and a wide variety of the other professional Industrial services that we now provide to the community. And for recess perhaps the children could climb up on top of the big landscape boulders or climb to the top of the 16 foot high fire protection water storage tank or maybe go on a field trip across the street to the big paper factory and watch the trains bring in the big rolls of paper. Maybe they could even get a free ride on the train - wouldn' t that be fun! � D, ' rtr)- Attachment 7 Aha! Perhaps we ha, .', _ A solution here ! They car. ; ly in the spacious 1/4 acre proposed on-site park,that is amongst the proposed additional 30, 000 square feet of commercial space to be crammed in there also. There will be plenty of commercial parking spaces to play in, or, they could play at the brand new Damon Garcia field right across the street, or, OOPS, I mean right across the freeway. And certainly, no-one would ever would drive 65 miles per hour on Broad Street because that is illegal. There is just one minor problem, however. There is no way to get across the freeway to the park. Why? Because the location for the proposed Prado Road intersection is only PROPOSED, and may not actually connect with 3592 Broad St . or with anything at all . Well, that is just such a minor issue anyway because those kids can, at least for now, crawl, walk, bike or skate an easterly block or so down Sacramento Drive past UPS and the big brown metal day-care center and then past the bar and night club to Industrial way and in another two blocks after crossing only 10 commercial driveways then cross the freeway at the SIX LANE INTERSECTION at the traffic signal for Highway 227 and Industrial Way. (note the hidden meaning, INDUSTRIAL WAY) I certainly hope that all those parents can get those directions clear. I further find it astonishing that the proposal causes 1009a of the residential traffic to enter and exit ONLY via Sacramento Drive with no outlet to Broad Street at all, thus dumping a couple of hundred cars onto an already congested industrially trafficked street . Carol Florence, the developers liason, in the meeting dated August 21, 2003, and held at John Wallace Associates stated that Sacramento Drive gets REAL QUIET after 5 PM, and we all certainly know that to be true, so perhaps the project could be conditioned so that no-one was allowed to leave or enter their 70 homes between the normal commercial business hours of Sam to 5pm when it is real busy. That should cure that annoying traffic safety problem. Ms . Florence has referred to this housing development as "WORK FORCE HOUSING" . Well, Ms . Florence, we all live in work force housing and it would be my opinion that just because you create some cheapo housing in the middle of an Industrial Zone doesn' t mean that all my tenants are going to sell their nice homes in Pacific Palisades, Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, Atascadero (etc . ) just so they can move here and bike 300 feet to work. Most of my tenants reside outside the SLO City Limits, and like myself they too, have been driven out of here years ago by, not only by the lack of quality here, but the absurd price rises created solely by the lack of supply of decent housing. I guess we can thank years and years of city Anti-Growth Policies for that . I 'm sorry but a densely packed bunch of little apartments and houses in the middle of an Industrial Zone doesn' t necessarily constitute decent housing. So what you have effectively done here is to create some transitional housing which people will tend to move in and out of (because they are located in a less than desirable area) , or treated simply as rental housing to be purchased by some investors to rent to students . After all, who would, by choice, want to live (at least for any length of time) in front of a 5 Lane Freeway, next door to a Car Dealership, a power relay and power generating station, across the street from an electronics factory and a paper factory, a wholesale dairy distribution plant and lastly a busy trucking and a high-traffic parcel delivery center? The answer is simply, ONLY THOSE WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE ANYWHERE ELSE . Perhaps Ms . Florence' s development could accomodate a substantial number of college students, as we all know they don' t seem to mind dwelling in all kinds of places such as garages and attics, and they never drive their cars to campus and they always take the bus . I suppose they could bike to campus a -rR too, after all Cuesta _lot that far and even t___ h there is"tibCh�l7 LEGAL way to get to Poly short of Tresspassing, s' udents are certainly resourceful enough not to let that stop them. In fact, since a lot of loud noise, as is typically found in an Industrial zone, doesn' t seem to bother the students at all ; they would fit right in with the almost all-night trucking next door and they could easily bike or walk to the Graduate to party! What a perfect solution. The purpose of zoning in the first place is to prevent an incompatible mixture of simultaneous land uses . The Commission should take a hard look at this before you take the explosive step of proceeding down the path of approving the biggest mix of incompatible uses yet . The Commission should also consider the environmental impact and the resulting potential liability of injecting hundreds of people into an Industrial area, without regard for their safety and especially, the safety of those young children. You should also consider the impact to ALL the surrounding Industrial Neighbors as we all will be forced, at great expense, to protect ourselves from the significant legal liability, and financial losses suffered as our industrial businesses degrade as a result of being INVOLUNTARILY converted to day-care centers for un-managed children. Personally, I have never been much of a fan of chain link fences, razor wire and security gates (although, it is quite popular in Culver City) . But if the developers do prevail with this residential bomb, then we, really are left no alternative but to get out the razor wire and the attorneys . why should we then, be paying this high price, not only aesthetically but also financially, solely for the purpose of improving their profit? Would it just be better for the City to relocate those houses in a much more clearly delineated Residential neighborhood where those children could safely play in real parks and accessable playgrounds? If some of those children did get out into the residential streets, as children do, they will not be exposed to heavy industrial truck traffic and the near continuous delivery traffic as presently exists there now. As a pro-development neighbor, I would be supportive of large scale commercial/industrial development of that property. The developers paid a lot of money for that property and they need to be able to substantially develop it in order to come out profitably. Commercially developed, it could become a good addition to the City, and will beautify the City entry corridor. BUT IT IS IMPERATIVE TO DEVELOP IT AS THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY IT NOW IS AND NOT A LOW-INCOME, LOW-RENT, "PROJECTS" TYPE HOUSING. Over the years, there have been a few obscure small companies that have founded their successful roots in these old Warehouse districts of San Luis Obispo. Perhaps San Luis Sourdough, Spice Hunter, Ziatech, Taco Works, San Luis Paints, California Cooperage and forget not Oasis Landscape, to mention just a couple of names you may have heard. Wouldn' t it be interesting if there were more of those now small companies out there waiting to blossom? Please do not extinguish our only business district from which some our next generations of great talent and true entrepreneurs shall emerge. SS Attachment 7 Attachment 7 - Correspondence submitted by Donald E. Hedrick a � Attachment 7 -ie * ck Donald E . dr1 ;I- A CREA77FE WELDBVGSERWCEJIdERGBVGARTF-iVGBVEERBVGFRA=C4LrFy AND ELEC7WCMMVOLOGY n=TIM57WEIV&—M OFAN OLD ACRKTRUCK P-0. Box 343, San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Phone (805) 541-0303 Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6, 20MU CokIt-AUNITY DEVELOPMEN t�,L PARKING,1LE Parking is an issue in the surrounding commercial Industrial neighborhood. This proposed 3592 Broad Street project will not provide any solution to the parking problems on Sacramento Drive and will only make the situation worse. It has no street parking on Broad Street since it is a major state highway, and the street face on Sacramento Drive is a designated Bicycle Path. It seeks to share its internal parking with its included businesses and its high density housing in the core and the appartments on top of the street face commercial componets. Now it is being proposed to reduce the parking requirement on this property. It would be an extreme burden of cars down the street on Sacramento Drive in front of the businesses that are legally and long existing in the commercial zone. The street is already utilized to the maximum at times and has a eb and flow through the day that somehow gets the job done. What It doesn't need is an overload of the extra cars that would sit stagnate the parking on the street, cars that don't move on a dayly basis would interfere with the normal use of the street by the existing 1 (2F 2, Attachment 7 business and would make for a hostile parking environment that would turn parking into a process of hunting and more inconvenience to the employees and customere of the existing ongoing business activites. And now it is mentioned to reduce the parking requirements of the project. What we need is to talk of reducing the residential aspects and need to park so many stagnate cars and to keep parking off street instead of destroying the marginally functional parking that the existing businesses have available for the existing business activities. If anything more off street parking should be included on the 3592 Broad Street Project. There is a round the clock use of the street by the existing businesses in various ways. There are semi-trucks making up their rigs at night and early morning. The Graduate's night club activities on several nights a week extend parked cars all the way up to that parcel at times. The daytime employees of existing businesses depend on parking on the street and fill up a major portion. When the street is too parked up, then the large trucks have a harder time making their deliveries to the businesses, I personally have had a steel delivery truck not be able to deliver to my business and have to park in the street and hand carry my order up the driveway that he could not make the turn into because the street was so full of parked cars that the driveway was bracketed to tight to make the semi-truck turn into the complex. More cars in the block that do not have off street parking will be and unacceptable burden on the existing businesses. Attachment 7 Donald E . Hedrick A CMEATIVE WMDWG5ERWC JWRGING"TENGINEERiNGFRACTICAL177' AND ELECTRIC TECFINOLOGY W=THESTRENGTH OT"OLD FORK 7WUCK P O Box 343 San Luis Obispo California 93406 Phone (805) 541-0303. Wednesday, June 16, 2004 P TITION In Opposition To the 3592 Broad St. Project A demonstration of support from the business community affected For Attachment to the Agenda of PD 24-03 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT l �F 17 a ~�3 Attachment 7 A Petition Set Before The City Legislators Of San Luis Obispo We as representitives of the business sector and in the commercial industrial zones on [lie city of San Luis Obispo, California find that we are systematic•: lly treated with a bias against our businesses and otherwise as if we were second class citizens of our toxvn. Our supposed own representatives exclude and discourage our partition in the decision making processes that affect our lives, businesses, and livelylioods and actively minimize our participation in important decision making processes. We recognize that the city government process is set up with an unevenhanded bias toward the land owners and developers to the detriment of our businesses. Our rights to participate in the decisions as to important policies and decisions that are made concerning the underlying fabric of our commercial industrial zoning uses is dispensed and practiced unequally compaired to the way property owners and developers and otherwise residents are favored by the legislative bodys in our government. The representatives in our government have no problem with imposing the collective will of the city on matters that affect our businesses and the fees and taxes, but are reluctant to encourage our participation in the decision making process. We ask for fair and evenhanded treatment and that the inbuilt bias demonstrated by our government against us be reversed. Land owners and residents are specifically invited to participate in the meetings but the businesses in the immediate areas affected by the decisions made for us to operate our businesses in are not even considered for notification of meetings, and must make specifid requests for notification. All we ask is for our rights take part in the legislative processes be practiced with fairness and in a evenhanded fashon. Therefore we as under represented citizens ask for an overhaul of the way our supposed representitives practice their public duties and live up to the public trust they must support. Print Your Name Siimature Address City /_in RC a, t�j U j. d /I Ise 1ttl N l.cc. � ��l AE .7 I reoee-.Y)3 C; sL U 9 3 y o -lot 3y/ V 40 1 Z PF r Attachment 7 i A Petition Set Before The City Legislators Of San Luis Obispo We as representitives of the business sector and in the commercial industrial zones on the city of San Luis Obispo, California find that we are systematically treated with a bias against our businesses and otherwise as if we were second class citizens of our town. Our supposed own representatives exclude and discourage our partition in the decision making processes that affect our lives. businesses, and livelyhoods and actively minimize our participation in important decision making processes. We recognize that the city government process is set up with an unevenhanded bias toward the land owners and developers to the detriment of our businesses. Our rights to participate in the decisions as to important policies and decisions that are made concerning the underlying fabric of our commercial industrial zoning uses is dispensed and practiced unequally compaired to the way property owners and developers and otherwise residents are favored by the legislative bodys in our government. The representatives in our government have no problem with imposing the collective will of the city on matters that affect our businesses and the fees and taxes, but are reluctant to encourage our participation in the decision making process. We ask for fair and evenhanded treatment and that the inbuilt bias demonstrated by our government against us be reversed. Land owners and residents are specifically invited to participate in the meetings but the businesses in the immediate areas affected by the decisions made for us to operate our businesses in are not even considered for notification of meetings, and must make specifid requests for notification. All we ask is for our rights take part in the legislative processes be practiced with fairness and in a evenhanded fashon. Therefore we as under represented citizens ask for an overhaul of the way our supposed representitives practice their public duties and live up to the public trust they must support. Print Your Namc Signature City zin �Rc�y Fri:cDrna+y �'/Y� �3G81 Sacrctrn"m D2. 0- S L.O. 9.3Ilo/ evDm&C, art e JCA rq , ' 1�--- ��I =� ,�A _ ,wc�. `�3�6/ 3 9F 1,7 �S Attachment 7 y A Petition Set Before The City Legislators Of San Luis Obispo We as representitives of the business sector and in the commercial industrial zones on the city of San Luis Obispo, California find that we are systematically treated with a bias against our businesses and otherwise as if we were second class citizens of our town. Our supposed own representatives exclude and discourage our partition in the decision making processes that affect our lives, businesses, and livelyhoods and actively minimize our participation in important decision making processes. We recognize that the city government process is set up with an uncvenhanded bias toward the land owners and developers to the detriment of our businesses. Our rights to participate in the decisions as to important policies and decisions that are made concerning the underlying fabric of our commercial industrial zoning uses is dispensed and practiced unequally compaired to the way property owners and developers and otherwise residents are favored by the legislative bodys in our government. The representatives in our government have no problem with imposing the collective will of the city on matters that affect our businesses and the fees and taxes, but are reluctant to encourage our participation in the decision making process. We ask for fair and evenhanded treatment and that the inbuilt bias demonstrated by our government against us be reversed. Land owners and residents are specifically invited to participate in the meetings but the businesses in the immediate areas affected by the decisions made for us to operate our businesses in are not even considered for notification of meetings, and must make specifid requests for notification. All we ask is for our rights take part in the legislative processes be practiced with fairness and in a evenhanded fashon. Therefore we as underrepresented citizens ask for an overhaul of the way our supposed representitives practice their public duties and live up to the public trust they must support. Print Your Name Si ure Address '�jDYJllf7�t �i2c Y/ ,'l � r I3�� .:L{��?'D �).�• t��.1.1��c��L?�" �1f �� lei C/I YC J- Ito 3 Of` 17 oc .SfIQ rer� , • Attachment 7 A Petition Set Before The City Legislators Of San Luis Obispo We as representitives of the business sector and in [lie commercial industrial zones on the city of San Luis Obispo, California find that we arc systematically treated with a bias against our businesses and otherwise as if we were second class citizens of our town. Our supposed own representatives exclude and discourage our partition in the decision making processes that affect our lives. businesses, and livelyhoods and actively minimize our participation in important decision making processes. We recognize that the city government process is set up with an unevenhanded bias toward the land owners and developers to the detriment of our businesses. Our rights to participate in the decisions as to important policies and decisions that are made conceming the underlying fabric of our commercial industrial zoning uses is dispensed and practiced unequally compaired to the way property owners and developers and otherwise residents are favored by the legislative bodys in our government. The representatives in our government have no problem with imposing the collective will of the city on matters that affect our businesses and the fees and taxes, but are reluctant to encourage our participation in the decision making process. We ask for fair and evenhanded treatment and that the inbuilt bias demonstrated by our government against us be reversed. Land owners and residents are specifically invited to participate in the meetings but the businesses in the immediate areas affected by the decisions made for-us to operate our businesses in are not even considered for notification of meetings, and must make specifid requests for notification. All we ask is for our rights take part in the legislative processes be practiced with fairness and in a evenhanded fashon. Therefore we as under represented citizens ask for an overhaul of the way our supposed representitives practice their public duties and live up to the public trust they must support. Print Your Name Sienature Address City Zip Ciii��Ci(1G li�Vi:l]C\\ � �n�/ � •t'� �� ) s199/2CIV �/ C�t ✓/ Li'l r' ��`> / J/'/t'f/; i; A_ -a y J S I �= f7 aro .� CMM r�ua�unttGrt[ A Petition Set Before The City Legislators Of San Luis Obispo We as representitives of the business sector and in the commercial industrial zones on the city of San Luis Obispo, California find that we are systematically treated with a bias against our businesses and otherwise as if we were second class citizens of our town. Our supposed own representatives exclude and discourage our partition in the decision making processes that affect our lives, businesses, and livelyhoods and actively minimize our participation in important decision making processes. We recognize that the city government process is set up with an unevenhanded bias toward the land owners and developers to the detriment of our businesses. Our rights to participate in the decisions as to important policies and decisions that are made concerning the underlying fabric of our commercial industrial zoning uses is dispensed and practiced unequally compaired to the way property owners and developers and otherwise residents are favored by the legislative bodys in our government. The representatives in our government have no problem with imposing the collective will of the city on matters that affect our businesses and the fees and taxes, but are reluctant to encourage our participation in the decision making process. We ask for fair and evenhanded treatment and that the inbuilt bias demonstrated by our government against us be reversed. Land owners and residents are specifically invited to participate in the meetings but the businesses in the immediate areas affected by the decisions made for us to operate our businesses in are not even considered for notification of meetings, and must make specifid requests for notification. All we ask is for our rights take part in the legislative processes be practiced with fairness and in a evenhanded fashon. Therefore we as under represented citizens ask for an overhaul of the way our supposed representitives practice their public duties and live up to the public trust they must support. Print Your Namc Sienaiwe Address C6 Zi �— t 6760 to51d Al3" Z Z G OP !7 a - Attachment 7 A Petition Set Before The City Legislators Of San Luis Obispo We as representitives of the business sector and in the commercial industrial zones on the city of San Luis Obispo, California find that we are systematically treated with a bias against our businesses and otherwise as if we were second class citizens of our town. Our supposed own representatives exclude and discourage our partition in the decision making processes that affect our lives, businesses, and livelyhoods and actively minimize our participation in important decision making processes. We recognize that the city government process is set up with an unevenhanded bias toward the land owners and developers to the detriment of our businesses. Our rights to participate in the decisions as to important policies and decisions that arc made concerning the underlying fabric of our commercial industrial zoning uses is dispensed and practiced unequally compaired to the way property owners and developers and otherwise residents are favored by the legislative bodys in our government. The representatives in our government have no problem with imposing the collective will of the city on matters that affect our businesses and the fees and taxes, but are reluctant to encourage our participation in the decision making process. We ask for fair and evenhanded treatment and that the inbuilt bias demonstrated by our government against us be reversed. Land owners and residents are specifically invited to participate in the meetings but the businesses in the immediate areas affected by the decisions made for us to operate our businesses in are not even considered for notification of meetings, and must make spccifid requests for notification. All we ask is for our rights take part in the legislative processes be practiced with fairness and in a evenhanded fashon. Therefore we as under represented citizens ask for an overhaul of the way our supposed representitives practice their public duties and live up to the public trust they must support. Print Your Name Sienature Address City Zir n prCJ E�,y7D/Y /� M,eu*� UV4 �s%l � '`-- ��. ��.�,5 s L C) r 3 y G/ a®� Attachment 7 A Petition Set Before The City Legislators Of San Luis Obispo We as representitives of the business sector and in the commercial industrial zones on the city of San Luis Obispo, California find that we are systematically treated with a bias against our businesses and otherwise as if we were second class citizens of our town. Our supposed own representatives exclude and discourage our partition in the decision making processes that affect our lives, businesses, and livelyhoods and actively minimize-our participation in important decision making processes. We recognize that the city government process is set up with an unevenhandcd bias toward the land owners and developers to the detriment of our businesses. Our rights to participate in the decisions as to important policies and decisions that are made concerning the underlying fabric of our commercial industrial zoning uses is dispensed and practiced unequally compaired to the way property owners and developers and othenvise residents are favored by the legislative bodys in our government. The representatives in our government have no problem with imposing the collective will of the city on matters that affect our businesses and the fees and taxes, but are reluctant to encourage our participation in the decision making process. We ask for fair and evenhanded treatment and that the inbuilt bias demonstrated by our government against us be reversed. Land owners and residents are specifically invited to participate in the meetings but the businesses in the immediate areas affected by the decisions made for us to operate our businesses in are not even considered for notification of meetings, and must make specifid requests for notification. All we ask is for our rights take part in the legislative processes be practiced with fairness and in a evenhanded fashon. Therefore we as under represented citizens ask for an overhaul of the way our supposed representitives practice their public duties and live up to the public trust they must support. Print Your Name nat r Address Cit %i Ru L V1 �lC �c� /1 _ �.-1c.�ti 1�t,cfC) — QtJ'c,' U f L9 ��yi",,,, D"- #�i0 Su: L:� N 4.7 �jYc7s' h r—fA�'�141—`�f�/� A/d Ne + /> �1F,c lrla cf Sl ��ri�r r 4 :,,,i & Attachment 7 A Petition Set Before The City Legislators Of San Luis Obispo We as representitives of the business sector and in the commercial industrial zones on the city of San Luis Obispo, California find that we are systematically treated with a bias against our businesses and otherwise as if we were second class citizens of our town. Our supposed own representatives exclude and discourage our partition in the decision making processes that affect our lives, businesses, and livelyhoods and actively minimize our participation in important decision making processes. We recognize that the city government process is set up with an unevenhanded bias toward the land owners and developers to the detriment of our businesses. Our rights to participate in the decisions as to important policies and decisions that are made concerning the underlying fabric of our commercial industrial zoning uses is dispensed and practiced unequally compaired to the way property owners and developers and otherwise residents are favored by the legislative bodys in our government. The representatives in our government have no problem with imposing the collective will of the city on matters that affect our businesses and the fees and taxes, but are reluctant to encourage our . participation in the decision making process. We ask for fair and evenhanded treatment and that the inbuilt bias demonstrated by our government against us be reversed. Land owners and residents are specifically invited to participate in the meetings but the businesses in the immediate areas affected by the decisions made focus to operate our businesses in are not even considered for notification of meetings, and must make specifid requests =t"for notification. All we ask is for our rights take part in the legislative processes be practiced with fairness and in a evenhanded fashon. Therefore we as underrepresented citizens ask for an overhaul of the way our supposed representitives practice their public duties and live up to the public trust they must support. Print Your Name Signature Address City zip S17'1 C`I velGf ✓u 1,"v ,e'/ L.d[_ Z73�u' �e'hC1/� C -`ALU `'3vU/ .. Or 17 a -� � Attachment 7 A Petition Set Before The City Legislators Of San Luis Obispo We as representitives of the business sector and in the commercial industrial zones on the city of San Luis Obispo, California find that we are systematically treated with a bias against our businesses and otherwise as if we were second class citizens of our town. Our supposed own representatives exclude and discourage our partition in the decision making processes that affect our lives, businesses, and livelyhoods and actively minimize-our participation in important decision making processes. We recognize that the city government process is set up with an unevenhanded bias toward the land owners and developers to the detriment of our businesses. Our rights to participate in the decisions as to important policies and decisions that are made concerning the underlying fabric of our commercial industrial zoning uses is dispensed and practiced unequally compaired to the way property owners and developers and otherwise residents are favored by the legislative bodys in our government. The representatives in our government have no problem with imposing the collective will of the city on matters that affect our businesses and the fees and taxes, but are reluctant to encourage our participation in the decision making process. We ask for fair and evenhanded treatment and that the inbuilt bias demonstrated by our government against us be reversed. Land owners and residents are specifically invited to participate in the meetings but the businesses in the immediate areas affected by the decisions made for us to operate our businesses in are not even considered for notification of meetings, and must make specifid requests for notification. All we ask is for our rights take part in the legislative processes be practiced with fairness and in a evenhanded fashon. Therefore we as under represented citizens ask for an overhaul of the way our supposed representitives practice their public duties and live up to the public trust they must support. Print Your Name Si nature Address City LI 17cSNP tv IF&o�N L,d 93 qoz Sid/t -7 �f�` r l Lti;V � V C "C• o� IC C nY: PrY 1511 Attacnmeni i . A Petition Set Before The City Legislators Of San Luis Obispo We as representitives of the business sector and in the commercial industrial zones on the city of San Luis Obispo, California find that we are systematically treated with a bias against our businesses and otherwise as if we were second class citizens of our town. Our supposed own representatives exclude and discourage our partition in the decision making processes that affect our lives. businesses. and livelyhoods and actively minimize our participation in important decision making processes. We recognize that the city government process is set up with an unevenhanded bias toward the land owners and developers to the detriment of our businesses. Our rights to participate in the decisions as to important policies and decisions that are made concerning the underlying fabric of our commercial industrial zoning uses is dispensed and practiced unequally compaired to the way property owners and developers and othcrwise residents are favored by the legislati'.C bodys in our government. The representatives in our government have no problem with imposing the collective will of the city on matters that affect our businesses and the fees and taxes,but are reluctant to encourage our participation in the decision making process. We ask for fair and evenhanded treatment and that the inbuilt bias demonstrated by our government against us be reversed. Land owners and residents are specifically invited to participate in the meetings but the businesses in the immediate areas affected by the decisions made for us to operate our businesses in are not even considered for notification of meetings, and must make specifid requests for notification. All we ask is for our rights take part in the legislative processes be practiced with fairness and in a evenhanded fashon. Therefore we as under represented citizens ask for an overhaul of the way our supposed representitives practice their public duties and live up to the public trust they must support. Print Your Name Signature Address City AI c� �v�.� moo/ J 70 / JGJ—y Lyl ��/7 y� � �{� 'Q-� � , �'1'IYI ►``�G- _ 3�t P �tir A- 0 77 L rue SLD 53y01 17 aq Attachment ; A Petition Set Before The City Legislators Of San Luis Obispo We as representitives of the business sector and in the commercial industrial zones oil the city of San Luis Obispo, California find that we are systematically treated with a bias against our businesses and otherwise as if we were second class citizens of our town. Our supposed own representatives exclude and discourage our partition in the decision making processes that affect our lives, businesses, and livelyhoods and actively minimize-our participation in important decision making processes. We recognize that the city government process is set up with an unevenhanded bias toward the land owners and developers to the detriment of our businesses. Our rights to participate in the decisions as to important policies and decisions that are made concerning the underlying fabric of our commercial industrial zoning uses is dispensed and practiced unequally compaired to the way property owners and developers and otherwise residents are favored by the legislative bodys in our government. The representatives in our government have no problem with imposing the collective will of the city on matters that affect our businesses and the fees and taxes, but are reluctant to encourage our participation in the decision making process. We ask for fair and evenhanded treatment and that the inbuilt bias demonstrated by our government against us be reversed. Land owners and residents are specifically invited to participate in the meetings but the businesses in the immediate areas affected by the decisions made for us to operate our businesses in are not even considered for notification of meetings, and must make specifid requests for notification. All we ask is for our rights take part in the legislative processes be practiced with fairness and in a evenhanded fashon. Therefore we as under represented citizens ask for an overhaul of the way our supposed representitives practice their public duties and live up to the public trust they must support. Print Your Name S' na ,re Address (:m' 7,r) 1Toc1y S�c7 93� v e -fI Z- Sa JJoA r R bo PI Com, &� �a W-a��L O ?3 YO/ � c, 173 �j1�L/L ` �SS2 Gly S't fbL1D SLD 93yC te•. ' N �r r a�� yt Attachment f A Petition Set Before The City Legislators Of San Luis Obispo We as representitives of the business sector and in tIic commercial irid ustrial zones on the city of San Luis Obispo, California find that we are systematically treated with a bias against our businesses and otherwise as if we were second class citizens of our town. Our supposed otivn representatives exclude and discourage our partition in the decision making processes that affect our lives. businesses, and lively-hoods and actively minimize our participation in important decision making processes. We recognize that the city government process is set up with an unevenhanded bias toward the land owners and developers to the detriment of our businesses. Our rights to participate in the decisions as to important policies and decisions that are made concerning the underlying fabric of our commercial industrial zoning uses is dispensed and practiced unequally compaired to the way property owners and developers and otherwise residents are favored by the legislative bodys in our government. The representatives in our government have no problem with imposing the collective will of the city on matters that affect our businesses and the fees and taxes, but are reluctant to encourage our participation in the decision making process. We ask for fair and evenhanded treatment and that the inbuilt bias demonstrated by our government against us be reversed. Land owners and residents are specifically invited to participate in the meetings but the businesses in the immediate areas affected by the decisions made for us to operate-our businesses in are not even considered for notification of meetings, and must make specifid requests for notification. All we ask is for our rights take part in the legislative processes be practiced with fairness and in a evenhanded fashon. Therefore we as under represented citizens ask for an overhaul of the way our supposed representitives practice their public duties and live up to the public trust they must support. Print Your Name sienatufe� Address City z-ip C,4iRIS AR G cam`' >� IIC6 RoyAL wow C13LtoS fly ur►�' �o lZ �,.. +35 t ROy141 w� 0// SCCA `I5 4o$ jl'r �ttN I'Oi,.. M /� i,�i3 n;�i' =� �1.�� i3 `flr L 13 OF 17 a A April 28, 2004 Objection to Residential Development in Light Industrial Area To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of ourselves, light industry/manufacturing and other small businesses in this area we object to the placement of a housing development in the middle of this commercial area. We believe that it is entirely inappropriate to develop the property on Broad Street, between Capitolio Way and Industrial Way(between the businesses of the new Stanley Motors and Level 3)as a residential area with housing units. It is much more in keeping with the existing use of the area,which is commercial, to continue its zoning and use as commercial, light industry, manufacturing and so forth. San Luis Obispo needs to have areas that are dedicated to providing jobs to the population throughout the county. This is one of those areas. It is imperative to have solid commercial space available to continue the expansion of job-producing businesses. Yes, San Luis Obispo needs to build low income housing. It should be built in areas that are essentially residential. People who need housing need it to be in"neighborhoods", not in the middle of an industrial area. Just as people in a residential neighborhood would mightily object to having a manufacturing plant built in their midst,we object to housing being built in the midst of an industrial area. To build such extensively dense housing in this small area is to place residents at risk of potentially hazardous traffic. It is already very congested during peak hours of the morning and evening. Further, residents would be isolated from a more cohesive family environment. Land that is used for light industry/manufacturing is incompatible with high density residential. Respectfully submitted, �Mc wv t4�tyt� - F. McGregor Gaines alto 1 Reso-Phonic Guitars i 11-( April 28, 2004 Obiection to Residential Development in Light Industrial Area To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of ourselves, light industry/manufacturing and other small businesses in this area we object to the placement of a housing development in the middle of this commercial area. We believe that it is entirely inappropriate to develop the property on Broad Street, between Capitolio Way and Industrial Way(between the businesses of the new Stanley Motors and Level 3) as a residential area with housing units. It is much more in keeping with the existing use of the area, which is commercial, to continue its zoning and use as commercial, light industry,manufacturing and so forth. San Luis Obispo needs to have areas that are dedicated to providing jobs to the population throughout the county. This is one of those areas. It is imperative to have solid commercial space available to continue the ^i expansion of job-producing businesses. Yes, San Luis Obispo needs to build low income housing. It should be built in areas that are essentially residential. People who need housing need it to be in"neighborhoods", not in the middle of an industrial area. Just as people in a residential neighborhood would mightily object to having a manufacturing plant built in their midst,we object to housing being built in the midst of an industrial area. To build such extensively dense housing in this small area is to place ; residents at risk of potentially hazardous traffic. It is already very congested during peak hours of the morning and evening. Further,residents would be isolated from a more cohesive family tom, environment. Land that is used for light industry/manufacturing is incompatible with high density residential. Respectfully submitted, �5't w4 cCul F. McGregor Gaines ` atto l Reso Phonic Guitars Tit, 1"'C41on t' AMU •e. F.i%7e e r April 28, 2004 Objection to Residential Development in Licht Industrial Area To Whom It May Concern: On behal f of ourselves, light industry/manufacturing and other small businesses in this area we object to the placement of a housing development in the middle of this commercial area. We believe that it is entirely inappropriate to develop the property on Broad Street,between Capitolio Way and Industrial Way(between the businesses of the new Stanley Motors and Level 3)as a residential area with housing units. It is much more in keeping with the existing use of the area,which is commercial,to continue its zoning and use as commercial,light industry, manufacturing and so forth. San Luis Obispo needs to have areas that are dedicated to providing jobs to the population throughout the county. This is one of those areas. It is imperative to have solid commercial space available to continue the expansion of job-producing businesses. Yes, San Luis Obispo needs to build low income housing. It should be built in areas that are essentially residential. People who need housing need it to be in"neighborhoods",not in the middle of an industrial area. Just as people in a residential neighborhood would mightily object to having a manufacturing plant built in their midst,we object to housing being built in the midst of an industrial area. To build such extensively dense housing in this small area is to place residents at risk of potentially hazardous traffic. It is already very congested during peak hours of the morning and evening. Further,residents would be isolated from a more cohesive family environment. Land that is used for light industry/manufacturing is incompatible with high density residential. Respectfully submitted, . Nl Cl u,v 'vim d F. McGregor Gaines alto 1 Reso-Phonic Guitars 'At.tkhment 7 April 28, 2004 Objection to Residential Development in Licht Industrial Area To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of ourselves, light industry/manufacturing and other small businesses in this area we ohjcct to the placement of a housing development in the middle of this commercial area. We believe that it is entirely inappropriate to develop the property on Broad Street, between Capitolio Way and Industrial Way(between the businesses of the new Stanley Motors and Level 3) as a residential area with housing units. It is much more in keeping with the existing use of the area,which is commercial,to continue its zoning and use as commercial,light industry,manufacturing and so forth. San Luis Obispo needs to have areas that are dedicated to providing jobs to the population throughout the county. This is one of those areas.It is imperative to have solid commercial space available to continue the expansion of job-producing businesses. Yes, San Luis Obispo needs to build low income housing. It should be built in areas that are essentially residential. People who need housing need it to be in"neighborhoods",not in the middle of an industrial area. Just as people in a residential neighborhood would mightily object to having a manufacturing plant built in their midst,we object to housing being built in the midst of an industrial area. To build such extensively dense housing in this.small area is to place residents at risk of potentially hazardous traffic. It is already very congested during peak hours of the morning and evening. Further,residents would be isolated from a more cohesive family environment. Land that is used for light industry/manufacturing is incompatible with high density residential. Respectfully submitted, . �/I�Gtit1 u,v�l4fn� � F. McGregor Gaines atto 1 Reso-Phonic Guitars i l6 0 � l ) Iraq Attachment 7 Obiection to Residcntial Development in Light Industrial Area To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of ourselves, light industry/manufacturing and other small businesses in this area we object to the placement of a housing development in the middle of this commercial area. We. believe that it is entirely inappropriate to develop the property on Broad Street,between Capitolio Way and Industrial Way(between the businesses of the new Stanley Motors and Level 3)as a residential area with housing units. It is much more in keeping with the existing use of the area,which is commercial,to continue its zoning and use as comritercial,light industry,manufacturing and so forth. San Luis Obispo needs to have areas that are dedicated to providing jobs to the population throughout the county. This is one of those areas. It is imperative to have solid commercial space available to continue the expansion of job-producing businesses that add revenue to the city. Yes,San Luis Obispo needs to build low income housing. It should be built in areas that are essentially residential. People who need housing need it to be in"neighborhoods",not in the middle of an industrial area. Just as people in a residential neighborhood would mightily object to having a manufacturing plant built in their midst,we object to housing being built in the midst of an industrial area. To build such extensively dense housing in this small area is to place residents at risk of potentially hazardous traffic. It is already very congested during peak hours of the morning and evening. Further,residents would be isolated from a more cohesive family environment. Land that is used for light industry/manufacturing is incompatible with high density residential. Respectfully submitted, 17 Or- 17 a � � �o Attachment 7 DonaldE . Hedrick r k, x A CREATIVE FVELDINGSERWCEAdERGWGARTENGDM3WGPAACTICALITY :. AND ELECT"CTEUMOLOGY WITS THE_TrxENGR7I OFAN OLD FORK TRuc �r P.O. Box 343 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Phone (805) 541-0303 Tuesday, June 15, 2004 CHY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO For Attachment to PD 24-03 JuN i o Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act coMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT California Codes Government Code Section 11120-11132 11120. It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly so that the public may remain informed. In enacting this article the Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of the law that actions of state agencies be taken openly and that their deliberation be conducted openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people-to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. This article shall be known and may be cited as the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. It appears that the people have lost control of the meeting and that the commissioners and or staff have been making decisions outside the view of the public repetitively and in secret. The Planning Commission is the instrument of the public and must make decisions in the Public Interest in Public View. Instead, the Planning Commission holds on to the position that they control the flow of Public Information and they are not accounted for their actions, not even in the Public Record. Even, the public comment in the meetings is distilled down to a comment like "The public spoke", but without any meaninful content. That is another example of silencing the Public. Attachment 7 California courts have recognized that the Legislature intended that all state and local agencies be included under the provisions of the open meeting acts, unless expressly excluded. Torres v. Board of Commissioners, 89 Cal. App. 3d 545, 152 Cal. Rptr. 506 (1979). The general guiding principle governing meetings of state and local agencies is that they must be "open and public," and action taken at meetings which are conducted in violation of the open meeting laws is voidable. . The Public Reserves the Right to Nulify the Decision of the Planning Commission on PD 24-03 § 11125. Required notice 11125. (a)The state body shall provide notice of its meeting to any person who requests that notice in writing. Notice shall be given and also made available on the Internet at least 10 days in advance of the meeting, and shall include the name,address, and telephone number of any person who can provide further information prior to the meeting, but need not include a list of witnesses expected to appear at the meeting.The written notice shall additionally include the address of the Internet site where notices required by this article are made available. (b) The notice of a.meeting of a body that is a state body shall include a specific agenda for the meeting,containing a brief description of the items of business to be transacted or discussed in either open or closed session. A brief general description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words. A description of an item to be transacted or discussed in closed session shall include a citation of the specific statutory authority under which a closed session is being held. No item shall be added to the agenda subsequent to the provision of this notice, unless otherwise permitted by this article. Once an Item is placed on the Agenda, it also can not be removed with out being Voted on by a 2/3 Majority. § 11125.1. Agenda;writings provided to body; public records 11125.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 6255 or any other provisions of law,agendas of public meetings and other writings,when distributed to all, or a majority of all, of the members of a 2 of Attachment 7 state body by any person in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at a public meeting of the body, are disclosable public records under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1), and shall be made available upon request without delay. However, this section shall not include any writing exempt from public disclosure under Section 6253.5,6254, or 6254.7 of this code, or Section 489.1 or 583 of the Public Utilities Code. Public Written Comment submitted to the Planning Commission is also part of the Public Record and should have been placed in public view and published with the Agenda when requested. Instead of publishing the Public Corespondence with the Agenda, the Agenda was Illegally modified by a process unknown to the Public and the Timely Submitted Public Corespondence was Omited from the hastily revised Agenda. This is an Act of Silencing the Written Voice of a Member of the Public and is Another Point of Violation of State's Public Meeting Laws that should not go un- noticed. § 11128.Time restrictions for holding closed sessions 11128. Each closed session of a state body shall be held only during a regular or special meeting of the body. If the Decisions to Postpone the meeting were done in a closed session it did not happen in the timeframe of the Schedualed Calendared Meeting and the minutes for the meetings at which the 3592 Broad Street Project Agenda Item were Postponed did not give any clue as to how the Decision to Continue were made and by Whom. § 111303. Cause of action to void action 11130.3. (a) Any interested person may commence an action by mandamus, injunction, or declaratory relief for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that an action taken by a state body in violation of Section 11123 or 11125 is null and void under this section. Any action seeking such a judicial determination shall be commenced within 90 days from the date the action was taken. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a state body from curing or correcting an action challenged pursuant to this section. The Public reserves the right to Petition the Court to have any 3 of Lo3 Attachment 7 decisions on this Agenda Item to be reversed or negated. § 11130.5. Court costs; attorney's fees 11130.5. A court may award court costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to Section 11130 or 11130.3 where it is found that a state body has violated the provisions of this article. The costs and fees shall be paid by the state body and shall not become a personal liability of any public officer or employee thereof. A court may award court costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a defendant.in any action brought pursuant to Section 11130 or 11130.3 where the defendant has prevailed in a final determination of the action and the court finds that the action was clearly frivolous and.totally lacking in merit. § 11130.7. Violation; misdemeanor 11130.7. Each member of a state body who attends a meeting of that body in violation of any provision of this article,and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this article, is guilty of a misdemeanor. § 11132. Closed sessions; express authorization required 11132. Except as expressly authorized by this article, no closed session may be held by any state body. CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 9027-9031 9027. Except as otherwise provided.in this article, all meetings of a house of the Legislature or a committee thereof shall be open and public,and all persons shall be permitted to attend the meetings. As used in this article, "meeting" means a gathering of a quorum of the members of a house or committee in one place for the purpose of discussing legislative or other official matters within the jurisdiction of the house or committee..As used in this article, 'committee" includes a standing committee,joint committee, conference committee, subcommittee, select committee,,special committee,research committee, or any similar body. 9028. Any meeting that is required to be open and public pursuant to this article, including any closed session held pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 9029, shall be held only after full and timely noticeto the public as provided by the Joint Rules of the Assembly and Senate. The Notices of Continuance of the 3592 Broad Street Project Agenda Item were made at the earliest Five Days before the meeting that they were originally Published. This is far short for the Ten Days the law requires for f Qr 6' 'al, 664 Attachment 7 notification and the removal or postponement was illegally done outside the view of the public. This was done twice and the Commission was advised by the public that it was a violation of law at the first meeting that the Item was Postponed. The Commission went on to discuss the placement of the Continued 3592 Broad Street Project at the end of the May 12, 2004 meeting after all the new business. I Point of Order was made that the 3592 Broad Street Project was not new business but continued old business and should not be placed after the new business just before the end of the meeting. The Chairman declared the Point Of Order did not apply and it was Published in the next Agenda at the last. The Commission had been warned at the first postponement yet went on to postpone the once again thePublished Agenda Item without the benefit of Public View so they were on notice that Public Meeting Law was being Violated. Also these decisions to Postpone were not made in a public meeting, but made in secret. Once an Item is Published, it belongs to the public and should not be tampered with by staff, but only by the Commission in the Public Meeting and only with a 2/3 Vote of the Commission. There is no Public Record of the Vote to Postpone, the tally of the votes, when the vote was taken, or who in fact made the Decision to Continue the Item. 9030. Each Member of the Legislature who attends a meeting of the Assembly,the Senate, or any committee or subcommittee thereof,where action is taken in violation of Section 9027, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The Commission was warned in the earlier meeting that the-Continuance was Decided in Violation of State Meeting Law and thus they were One and All involved in the Misdemeanorous Illegal Continuance the second time the meeting was postponed after it was Published in the May 12, 2004 Agenda and was misterously continued again the weekend before the Calendared Event. The Public Record or Lack of Public Record is proof of the Violation of Public Meeting Law. At the May 12 meeting the Commission was once again informed of the Illegal Postponement. OF �� Attachment 7 9031. Any interested person may commence an action by mandamus, injunction, or declaratory relief for the purpose of stopping or preventing violations or threatened violations of this article by Members of the Legislature or to determine the applicability of this article to actions or threatened future action of a house of the Legislature or a committee thereof. It should also be noted that these Violation of the Public Meeting Law gives grounds for the decision of the Commission on this Agenda Item to be overturned in Court, and also opens the door for reviewing other decisions made by the Planning Commission. Attachment 7 Donald Hedrick _:". ,?, A CREATIVE WELDING SEA VICE AdERGW4GAItTENGINEF-RIV4GPRAC77C4LIrY AND ELEC73UC TECFEVOLOGY WrrH 77M 57XENGTH OFAN OLD FORK TRUCX P.O. Box 343 San Luis-Obispo, California 93406 Phone (805) 541-0303 Tuesday, June 15, 2004 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO For Attachment to PD 24-03 JUN +. 6 X104 Mayor Dave Romero, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTJ We have a problem again with the Posting of the property of the 3592 Broad Street Project that is coming up before the Planning Commission June 23, 2004. As you may remember we went through this before. At the Planning Commission Meeting after my last mention of the absense of posting on Sacramento Drive, which is the major access street for the project and the most visible location for notifying the parties affected by this project, it was announced at the meeting that there was a "SNAFU" in the posting. It was agreed that Sacramento Drive would be posted also as well as the lesser access street, Broad Street.Highway 227. Well, once again the Sacramento Drive is without posting. I checked Sunday evening and again Monday evening, but no posting and it has gone past the legal posting deadline. It would appear that there is an intentional oversight to have the effect of not informing the District that is affected by this project of the impending meeting. It would seem that "Situation Normal All F----- Up" is the Planning Commissions Normal Mode of Opperation. There was A Promise at that meeting that Sacramento Drive would be posted. Apparently the Commission Chairman's Word is defective, or the Commission has no control over its staff. And you have lost control over the Commission. And the Commission is opperating in defiance of the City Council and YOU THE MAYOR. You are responsible to the Public and the Public is being ill served by its City Government. This adds to the perception of a city government disconnected from the citizens of the town and paints a picture of an arrogant government that has no respect for the Laws of the State and due process is suffering. We in this commercial district already have a sense of being disenfranchised and unrepresented by this definitely biased to the developers Httacnrnent 7 that seek to rape our commercial / industrial zoned district. There is the appearance that our businesses in the district have no representation and no protection from the infestation of humanity that will take away our rights as legal businesses in a legally zoned commercial area. As it is written in the Municipal Code once residents are introduced into the commercial zone, the rights of residents will cancel out and overpower the voice of the existing business users of the district. The Codes are written with a bias towards the rights of residents. As it is little is done to inform the businesses in the district of the public meetings that affect them. Notices are limited to being sent to property owners and the businesses that will be affected the most are kept in the dark by design. I would say that if you can't protect the businesses that bring revenue to the city and instead push and promote the infestation of our commercial zone with residential uses that will.threaten the legal opperation of the existing businesses, it you won't represent the businesses that by Codes and Ordances are under tighter controls than residents who consume city services at a cost, then perhaps you shouldn't tax us. The business areas are second class citizens when residential uses are imposed on us and the whole of the city's oprational documents are biased toward residential. As it is residents are voters and the businesses can't even count on being involved in the decision process that affects their ability to opperate in their own district. Because your system is so bias toward residential and we businesses are not considered worthy of participatation in government, we deserve and require protection from greedy outside interest and ask that our commercial zone not be asaulted. If you discourage the business sector from participation in the decision process then we require protection from those who would severely negitively impact us. But in the mean time the lack of informing posting of the major access street of the project because the only people existing in the district are business makes for a hostle environment for our businesses. I have talked to 3/4's of the businesses in the district and the overwhelming consensus is against the intrusion of housing into our commercial zone. Another factor worth noting is that the larger businesses in the district for the large part have corporate policies not to get involved in the local politics. That leaves the smaller local businesses at a disadvantage when it comes to representing the area. I hope you will be the Mayor to Restore Honnor and Fairness to the City Government. L �'� 3 � � tOQ Attacnment i Citizen. Donald E. Hedrick Attachment 7 it Donald. E . Hedrick A CTtEATNE WELDING�ERVICEAERM?VGARTENGBVEZRINGPP-ACl7CALIIY ANDELEMUCTBaWOLGGYWITH=STREN4=OFANOLD FORK TRUCE P.O. Box 343, San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Phone (805) 541-0303 For Attachment to PD 24-03 ;Ii", OF_SAN LMS OBISPO i i Ir g 2MMonday, June 14, 2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Mayor Dave Romero, -- I have one question that requires an answer. When dealing with the city on various matters with several varied departments, I have posed questions and I never,get an answer. Is it the policy of city government to stonewall and not give citizens answers to their questions. So far the fire department does not respond to questions and the planning department does not answer citizen questions. Is there any department that actually gives an honest answer to citizen questions. In the Planning Commission Meetings, Questions were asked in writing and there seems to be no vehicle to respond to them. It seems like questions are received but.that is the last that is heard of the questions. Is there anywhere in the process that questions are actually looked at and answered. I know our voices fall on death ears and now are cut down to 3 minutes falling on death ears, but no responces are made to our question in writing. Even when the question is about a legal issue there seems to be an unwillingness to respond with and answer or even to correct illegal behavior among city departments. Could I be honnored with a response. Citizen, Don Hedrick Attachment 7 OTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAY 1 04 Donald E . He • .-,` `• A CREATIVE WEZDWGSEXVICXl1[ERtMVGAR.TMVGUZEE NGPRAC77CAMY AND ELECTRIC TECIEVOLOGY WITH 77M573EEN&7N OFAN OLD FOAL TRMX P.O. Box 343 San Luis Obispo California 93406 Phone (805) 54170303 Friday, May 14, 2004 For Attachment to PD 24-03 In a recent review of the plan map for the 3592 Broad Steet Project, I noticed several points worthy of mention. The East West bicycle foot path which the developers are promoting as a connection through the project to the intersection of Prado and Broad Streets and on into the Soccer Field appears to not be really intended to perform that function. It seems to barely cross the creek when it dumps into the court yard of the commercial development where it looses its definition, and has no apparent actual connection to Broad Street and not even the sugestion of continuity to the proposed Prado intersection. This supposed gem of the project and asset to the community is more of a private walkway serving the project and not the general community as it has been described by the promoters. This is a chance to make and actual connection with a destination, the soccer field, and the existing bike path desiginated on Sacramento Drive which seems to interupt at the Sacramento Drive street face of the 3592 Broad Street parcel. As the offering of a person and bike path connection between the two streets, it is an understatement and is not the distinctly public human easement through the project that it could and should be. On the Sacramento Drive side it is not a distinctly separate egress as would be reflected in the guidelines for bike paths. On Broad Street there is no obvious path. This human path through the project has a long way to go the be a convincing part of the community's right to contigous bike and human pathways separated from vehiclular trafic. It could have a more appropriate course allong the creek bank top where it could then tie into the Prado intersection and light, but as it is proposed, it ends in a court yard that is part of the flood plain and its termination will be under water in flood conditions. Flood water at that location exceeds the 182 foot elevation as I have -Attachment 7 observed storm conditions where waters that did not follow the creek but pushed out onto the highway actually flowed over the center of the highway. It should be noted that the culvert under the highway that would normally handle the flow is three decades old in its engineering and is the choke point for the creek. Since that culvert was engineered most of the development of the neighborhood has occured and with it the increases in runoff from roofs and parking lots has added the overwhelming amount of storm runoff. Also worth noting is that much of the lowland at the front of the parcel is between 178 feet and 182 feet elevation and when the culvert has flood water backed up so much that it can spill over the center of Broad Street at the 182 foot elevation then much of the flood plain that is the commercial development will be under water. During one of those flooding experiences I made the sugestion to the resident of the little house on the parcel that they should raise all of their furniture up on beer bottles and that saved much of their furniture from damage. Another observation of the proposed development is the street setback from Broad Street. Not only does it ignore the setback as practiced by all of the other developments in that it pushs up close to the street, but seems to be unaware of the special setback status of that part of Broad Street in anticipation of widening of Broad Street. The street is bounded on the west by a creek and any expansion of the highway for future added lanes has to happen on the East side. I can't immagine fitting two more lanes between the highway and the proposed commercial buildings on the flood plain of the 3592 Broad Street Parcel. Refer to the Special Street Setback Map in the city's documents. I believe there is still time to address this Engineering and Public Works review oversight. Now is the time to straighten out this detail omission before the project gets its much city promoted acceptance and before the city looses its option for future street widening because they let one misguided project put up its buildings with such a small setback. In the city's haste to promote this project I feel many things of importance are being over looked in the review process. Who has the responsibility for that degree of review? Attacnment 7 Donald E . Hedrick :::, i '. A CRF.ATNE WELDINGSERwcFAffRGINGARTENGIN1 RlNGPItACRTGlLITY h AND ELEC7]UCTEC IBVOLOGY iYIlH THESIREIvGm oFAN OLD FORK TRUOr P.O. Box 343 San Luis Obispo California 93406 Phone (805) 541-0303 Wednesday, May 12, 2004 For Attachment to PD 24-03 Once again you have chose to take a calendered item and deside to continue it in a decision made outside this room. Under Roberts Rules Of Order would indicate the proper way to deal with the continuance would be for at the acceptance of the previous minutes then staff would have its turn to state their recommendation of continuance. Whereby the commission would have to pass the continuance by a 2/3 vote. Then the item would be legally postponed. This gives the appearance of you twice meeting in a closed meeting to make this postponement. Once an item is placed on the calender it is not up to staff to make these changes. It takes a vote in an open meeting to alter the agenda once it is on the calender. Who is watching the meeting and is responsible for guiding the meeting for legal points of interest. The city attourney has continued to be silent when you stray from the legal path. He should be reporting these Points Of Order issues that have formed a picture of an ongoing pattern of violation of the Brown Act in the appearance of setting agenda in secret meetings.. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ` 6 2004 COMMUNITY DB".- ...... E` : `;•J 1014 0130woo �g�NtV 04180 T.n NVS_ JO A110 4F 1 a '� � �J AnacnmenvzVV., V MAY 14 MUNITY VELOPMENT Donald E . He&rlck A C3EE4INE MLDINGSERVICEAffRGINGARTENGR m r4- pit 1cwcALlrY AND ELECTRIC TEC VVOLOGY FMN THES 3UN&7NOFANOLDFORKTRUCr w P.O. Box 343 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Phone (805) 541-0303 Wednesday, May 12, 2004 For Attachment to PD 24-03 Once again you have chose to take a calendered item and deside to continue it in a decision,made outside this room. Under Roberts Rules Of Order would indicate the proper way to deal with the continuance would be for at the acceptance of the previous minutes then staff would have its turn to state their recommendation of continuance. Whereby the commission would have to pass the continuance by a 2/3 vote. Then the item would be legally postponed. This gives the appearance of you twice meeting in a closed meeting to make this postponement. Once an item is placed on the calender it is not up to staff to make these changes. It takes a vote in an open meeting to alter the agenda once it is on the calender. Who is watching the meeting and is responsible for guiding the meeting for legal points of interest. The city attourney has continued to be silent when you stray from the legal path. He should be reporting these Points Of Order issues that have formed a picture of an ongoing pattern of violation of the Brown Act in the appearance of setting agenda in secret meetings. Attachment 7 12U Ga1MU TY EL" T • mt-�pCRona . Hedrick A EATIVE WELDINGSERVICEAdERGINGARTENGINEERINGPRACTTCALITY AND ELECMCTECTDITOLOGY K=THESTRENGTX OFAAF OLD FORICTRUCX P.O. Box 343 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Phone (805) 541-0303 E-mail encouraged donhedrickQechxpress.net Wednesday, April 21, 2004 For attachment to the Planning Commission April 28, 2004 Meeting PD 24-03 Citizen study of the conflicts between the 3592 Broad Street Project and selected stated goals and policies and other city government documents. intended as a working paper for court review. This is an analisis of the conflicts between the performance requirements that are the published goals and policies as expressed in various city documents available to the public as the apply to the 3592 Broad Street Project that is currently before the Planning Commission. I appoligize for its bulk, but it wouldn't have gotten so big if there weren't so many conflicts in the comparison to the project before us, and the precedent setting twisting of the city's purpose in the attempt to fit this worst case senario of a project proposal that should have been declared dead on sight with all the extreme conflicts with the citys own documents. As this writing procedes the City's documents are in regular type face and the commentary is in the italics. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines ars c� Attachment 7 Full text of this correspondence provided for the Council and available for public review in the Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street. ' Wtt Y. V...• rv.v v�•v. r Attachr. _ ;it 7 COMMUNITY EVELOPM ENT Donald E . He 1C tl� A ClIF.AI7VE WELDiNGSERYICEII�RGAVGARTENGINEERWGPRACTIGILITY AND ELECTRICTECXNOLOGY fVnH THES7RENGTH OFAN OLD FORKTRUCI' P.O. Box 343 San_Luis Obispo, California 93406 Phone (805) 541-0303_ E-mail encoural;ed donhedrick@techaress.net Wednesday, May 05, 2004 For attachment to the Planning Commission May 12, 2004 Meeting PD 24-03 Citizen study of the conflicts between the 3592 Broad Street Project and selected stated goals and policies and other city government documents. intended as a working paper for court review. This is an analisis of the conflicts between the performance requirements that are the published goals and policies as expressed in various city documents available to the public as the apply to the 3592 Broad Street Project that is currently before the Planning Commission. I appoligize for its bulk,but it wouldn't have gotten so big if there weren't so many conflicts in the comparison to the project before us, and the precedent setting twisting of the city's purpose in the attempt to fit this worst case scenario of a project proposal vs.; what should have been declared dead on sight, with sum total of numerous conflicts with the cities own documents and Codes. As this writing procedes the City's documents are in regular type face and the commentary is in the italics. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines I °F Attachment 7 Full text of this correspondence provided for the Council and available for public review in the Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street. Attachment 7 Donald E . Hedrick -71—:''" A CREAME rO=AVGSERVICEddERGlNGAXTEN43nYZMXWGJ7RAC77CALrlY L ; AND ELEC7ZAC TEC7DVOLOGY WITH 77MS73MVGM OFAN OLD JVFX TRUCK __. P.O. Box.343, San Luis Obispo, California 43406 Phone (805) 541-0303 E-mail encouraged donhedrick&techxpress.net Monday, March 22, 2004 The property at-3592 Broad Street has a long history with the low ground in the front of the parcel being in the flood plain. The flooding used to push out across 227 highway untill the highway was raised above the flood level and an improved culvert was put in to cross the highway. It was a wet lands with egrets wading through the bog in search of crawdads and goffers. Then Darrel's Ministorage went in and a box culvert was added to match the size of the state highway engineered culvert. It ended with a weir in the vertical wall of the property line to the 3592 parcel. The wier was a small fraction of the size of the box culvert. Later the owner of the parcel did a filling in and regrading of the wetlands that were the lower front of the property such that the wetlands were raised up to the top of the box culvert at the property line. The original grade was slightly lower than the well's concrete floor slab which is now a couple of feet below grade. The main driveway was not significantly raised except by the addition of gravel which helped control the soft bottom land that was a mess of potholes every winter. By raising up the wet lands the driveway became a significant escape valve for flood conditions whereby.. storm water would leave the driveway because the weir into the box culvert could not handle all the flow and the alternate path was to join more storm water that missed the turn onto the parcel and blew on out through the old market parking lot and make its way out onto the sholder of the highway. There it would join the overflow coming out of the driveway and go on south and cut across the front corner of the property to dump into the neighboring box culvert somewhat down stream of the creek wier. The imediate back yards of the two houses are at near to the origingal �,l l9 riaauaJn I AGI Ol i I lel e 0 Dona . ia edrick A CMEA MW WELDING SFR.VICE AMRGWG AXT ENGW EFOUNG F"=CALITY 1� .AND ELECTItICTEC HNOLD+GY WTIH THE STRENGTFi'OF AN OLD FOXKTRUCS P O Box 343 San Luis Obispo California 43406 Phone (805) 541-0303 E-mail encourc .ed donhedriecb wressnet.com Tuesday, September 16, 2003 Since the verbal record is typically not transcribed and bears little notice I have capsilated rn- citizen response at the podium and ask that if also be attached to the permanent record of the September I O; 2003 Planning Commission Meeting. What! Three mini.ites, I thought I got five, gota talk fast. ' :.,ense that the creek is your crown jewel, Well, it's too small. It doesn't match the engineered charm d leading up to it from around Level 3, and the engineered open box culvert at Darrel's Ministorage. It is five times too small. An example of a storm water condition observed. The now coming down the upstream channel missed the turn into the little creek and �!10t on past to run out the parking lot onto the highway and turned left and join,,N, with the flow coming out of the parcels driveway to continue on to the cornner of the parcel where it -roded a new path into the open box culvert.»»»»> TIME«««« (if I were allowed to continue) I would have added that the entire north well of the open box culvert except for six f';,ot: in the middle was awash with v, iter cascading into the culvert it.was so 1-U `1 that the waves in the flow «erg: )_,pp ing the ceiling of the:enclosed part of th- culvert. For Attachment to PD 24-03 CITY OF SAN LIQ': u MP162003 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Attachment 7 i r Donald E . Hedrick A C3ZEA E WELDINGS WCEAMRGWGARTENGWEEKINGPRAC77C4LrrY AND ELECTRIC TEC7UVOLOGY WnN MESTRF.NGTH OFAN OLD FORK TRUCK P.O. Box 343, San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Phone (805) 541-0303 E-mail encouraged donhedrickktechxpressnet.com September 13, 2003 CITY OF S,Ai LU:'_ For inclusion as an ATTACHMENT to PD24-03 SEP 16 2003 Orval Osbourne LCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Commission Chairman City of San Luis Obispo, Calif. I ask for fair and equal treatment and perhaps as a way of making amends for your selectively holding me to a speaking time limit of 3/5 of what was stated at the start of the meeting, consider the granting me the courtesy of being allowed to finish a thought in future meetings. Of which the interest in my participation can be assured. No one else was cut off at the stated time limit, much less even had the clock monitored. It is already a squeeze to make a point in five minutes, much less when you count the stating of name and address when your street is named Sac-ra-men-to and you suddenly have to adjust to-half of the time that others were offered or less. Nobody else in the meeting was cut off so rudely. Could you explain your unique treatment of me? Why was I singled out for such silencing when I have been the citizen to lead the public response and have invested hours in presenting written counter points starting with the Architectual Review Commission, who expressed their appreciation, for my participation and preparation amd presentation, where I effectively presented a list of key points OF Attacriment 7 which mirror the concerns of my neighborhood? Were you acting on your own or at someones bidding? You may be compelled to answer such questions as an official of the city. I have also invested the time to talk to a contact person at 3/4 of the businesses in the commercial industrial zone that will be affected by this obvious dismantling of the zoning laws that were designed to separate incompatable uses of land. The concensus. of the neighboring businesses is that this is a quick money driven grab to speed develop an easy pickin' site without reguard for the effects and consequences of the insertion of an incompatable use into an already estabilished area at near utilization capacity. Previously. intensely commercial and manufacturing activities were sequestered in this block. This 3592 project represents a doubling of the cars in the block which is already more near the limits of parking now, and just the modest commercial offering in the proposal would possibilly press toward gridlock of the parking. The residential cars would take it over the top. Bear in mind that all these residents will be leaving their cars at home and walking or biking as per the developers own persuasion. My investment in time and materials has infact doubled the citizen speaking participation already, and I have hopes of exponiential increasment in the future, since I have circulated the neighborhood twice already, the information is getting out there with increasing efficiency. Also, as the .story.unfolds, I feel I will be able to inspire more to participate in their local government process when the incremental successes I gain will dispel the ingrained belief that "you can't buck City Hall". May I remind you of my unique status as the most senior person in the block with 25 continous years of conducting business in the block. I have also maintained a curiosity for every public works hole in the street in the neighborhood, and known by many in - 190-- Attachment 7 Sacramento Drive, or even some specifics would prove interesting and prove my point. If you were to search by my name, you would fine quite a list and actually find that I am the defacto Neighborhood Watch and have co-operated successfully with the police in the apprehension of a significant number of burglars. Perhaps it is good to have residents in our industrial environment, but I can't believe that would imply ;families be inserted in the war games of the night. In speaking of the compatability of residential and industrial, there are many police reports of my experiences of vandalism, stalking, assaults on me while working my night job for the night club of water bombs and paper wads hurled over the dividing fence of the housing tract to the South. I have had chemicals and toner dumped on my golf cart, windshield broken on my truck, water baloons and paint gun balls shots at the walls and doors of my business, golf balls have been launched into the walls of my building from the landscaped bicycle path inside the housing tract. And you have to lock your trailer hitch into your bumper if you want to keep it very long, and I gave up putting the registration tags on my trailers as they frequently disappear. I even traced some older kids who had been stalking me to the core of the housing track where I found three of them siting on bench on the bicycle path and was talking to them when the fourth came out of a house next to the path and joined the rest. I just don't see how inbuilding residential uses into a commercial industrial zone.can have a happy outcome. Now back to your poetry of the sympatigo of the yin and yang of the industrial and the residential entwined and tied together with the free flow of humanity via the gate at the Sacramento Drive and Industrial intersection. Hogwash! ! "THAT GATE'S BEEN LOCKED FOR YEARS." The penetration point between the dual neighborhoods is a bother and the source of so many complaints, and more from the residents than the businesses, but both Attachment 7 Of-, G , sigmificant. That it was the tract association that permanently put the locks on the gate, without benefit of consulting anyone on the other side of this land bridge. Nor was the public involved either. So many of their own kids from the track abused their own neighbors with parking and drinking on the next street and bicycle path that with the intensity of the bad feelings the gate was unilatterly been access denied 24/7. Now the gate serves the purpose of training young people that climbing over a fence is the expected way of life in your home turf, basic training in disrespecting of property rights and the concept of cutting businessed fences is not a large leap from there. If you persist in trying to use fiction to sell the town on this mixed use in our industrial areas, you run the risk that someone in the audience will know all the facts. And with the way you abused me in your public meeting, you have my attention, and with my 25 years of, for the most part 24/7 in this specific neighborhood and especially to be considering the eighteen years as a respected business on the 3592 Broad St. percel, you best stick closer to the truth if you can. I apoligize for not saying, "Excuse Me." before derailing your train of thought as you did to mine. "Pay back is a ich". Now you have shown your bias toward the developers interests in a way that prompts me to ask you to excuse your self from any voting on this matter in accordance with proper public meeting procedures.. Please conduct your self more appropriately in the future so that future issues do not compromise yourself further. This brings to mind the thought that if you had done your home work and actually read the citizen input materials you would have had the oportunity to check your facts, and avoided bringing fiction into the planning process. A little more doing the work of the city and less courting the crumbs of favor of the developers is in order. The way I read this project. This is the singularly most r1LlQ1.11111C11L / extreme case of the hazards of the truck traffic, the diesel fumes, the parking problems, the storm drainage problems, noise and light pollution, fast traffic on Broad St., the transportation company, and many other factors make it imperative that this neighborhood be defended with the utmost vigor. If this project can go through then there will be no credible resistance for any proposed project that is encumbered with less detractors. The whole town is at risk of loosing its self determination in its land use. This project sets a dangerous precedent and begs to be tested, by community vote, or by Higher Courts. In view of your breach of my Constitutional Rights in your silencing my citizen's right to speak at your meeting, I request that this letter be included in the public record as an attachment to the next Planning Commission Agenda dealing with this mixed use project. I would also like to have access to public records as I have needs to understand and study. In my dealings with the city it is all to commom for me to be denied access to manuals, books, and specifications in the past. If the representatives of the city are operating in the light, there should be no problem, but I fear that the dark side is pushing its influence with greased hands. Clean up your act in time to represent the people of San Luis Obispo and save your soul. You should also offer a apology for the malacious short clocking my constitution granted right to equal opportunity to speek at the meeting, at the next meeting concerning this project would be appropriate. Donald E. Hedrick ;Attachment 7 ( SEP 32003 MMUNITY D LOPMENT nald E . Hedrick . A CREATIVE WELDINGEERVICFAMRaWGARTEN7ZIV p GPRAC ICALlrY AND ELECTRIC TECHNOLOGY FVHN THE.STRENGTH OFAN OLD FORK TRUCK P O. Box 343 San Luis Obispo California 93406 Phone (805) 541-0303 E-mail encouraged donhedrick@techxpressnet.com Wednesday, September 03, 2003 . Several concerns need to be expressed concerning the proposed development at the 3592 Broad St. project, and a few ideas are offered. Development of the site should not target families with kids. This is an industrial and heavy comercial zoned block with great amounts of heavy semi trucks, delivery fleet trucks, and Ride On Transportation which is based across Sacramento Street near where the main ingress and egress to the property would compete on a street already near capacity and saturated with parking, too narrow for including parking and bicycle paths, mid block where the heavy trucks are at their maximum speed. The trucking activity goes on all night with AMK and Producer's Milk and the Long Haul UPS trucks moving a lot of freight. All these heavy trucking activities night and day would pose undue risk to kids on bikes that would have only one egress for most of the tennants of the project. It would be poor planning to impose a lot of kids into the path of 80,000 pound trucks at crusing speed on an industrial back street. The possibility of a child death is predictable and shamefully irresponsible to set up such a situation. We as industrial users of a zoning area that was set aside for businesses whose activities are not compatable with close proximity to family activities, feel betrayed by the ease withwhich our supposed representatives in local government would violate the Huacr1mem sanctity of our industrial zoning. My business is not allowed to be in a residential use area and unconditional residential intrusion into the industrial zone is a threat to our activities which need to be buffered from the sniveling and complaining that comes next after families move in. On the south side of Industrial Way is a large tract who not long after the people moved in they were requesting no parking on Industrial at night on their complaints of noise. Next they were locking the gate to the bicycle path to block access. This 24 hour closed gate is basic training in disrespect for fences for the kids that live in the tract and don't want to take a four block detour to get on the other side of the gate. I think that people that infect an industrial zone as residential users should as a condition of their acceptance of the bargain affordable (ha-ha) housing forever give up their right to complain of the activities of their industrial neighbors and it should be codified in their deeds and rential agreements. Business is hard enough without making it even more hostile by adding all the off the project wanderings of the kids living in a high density compound next to us. Parking is already a problem on Sacramento Drive and this project has announced to have 170 licenced drivers in 65 living units and 1 .2 parking places per bedroom if I heard right. That works out to not enough parking places for all the drivers if they only had one car each. If multiple cars are involved then the businesses projected for the a street frontages will probably be the first to be impacted to the detriment of their businesses but there would be plenty of extra vehicles to clog up the parking which is already stressed and in the holiday season maxed out. The impact of all the extra cars would certainly make it harder for any businesses in the street frontage area to be convenient to their own customers and also impact the convience of the rest of the existing business to their respective customers. When the whole street is full a-ice Nnacnmeni i 3 - of cars then the semi trucks will be hard pressed to find enough length of open curb to hook and uuhook to make up their double trailer rigs and increase the burden of extra inefficiencies of time and increase of the diesel smells to be complained about. The burden of all those cars from the project's single parcel would be to double the cars on the whole block when the street is already two thirds parked out. It will choke the street with cars and a lot of those cars could be the extra second cars that would not fit in the allowed parking on site and being the second cars they may stagnate and not move as often as the 72 hour parking limit on city streets and interfere with the activities of the semi trucks mixing their trailers. The science applied to excuse this project is flawed. Sound studies may have been performed but an involved source told me that when the sound study of Level 3's hvac cooling system was performed no one bothered to ask to start the one million watt diesel generator which has got to make near as much noise as a locomotive but a block closer and putting out a lot of diesel combustion, but it won't drive away after it starts. The generator has to be exercised regularly to keep it tested and servicable. Will the 12 foot tall concrete wall proposed to separate Level 3 be high enough to include the mitigation of the generator noise. Nobody bothered to include the referigerated trucks at Producers Milk Distributors which are parked in a row in front of the cold storage with their onboard compressors which run all night to charge up the route trucks that are gone on delivery all day but can be heard all night. Will a Sound wall be needed in Producer's driveway? UPS was also deemed to need a 12 foot tall wall also for all the noise of their trucks which are also diesel. Across the street at Quest Comunications there are three emergency generators that are even larger than Level 3's. All this diesel generator activity is unique to this block and all the semi trucks are most intense on that part of r'lllCitJev. . 1 Sacramento and add UPS's diesel trucks and the fact that the parcel is in a low spot in the lee of the large hill on the other side of Broad St. and the diesel fumes tend to linger. This is a good reason to think twice before installing families with kids into this block with young developing lungs which would be better served with fresher air. Thus a potiential future burden on the health care system. Would rising insurance costs for avoidable medical problems warrant the introduction of kids into the industrial mix? The sounds of the diesels in the neighborhood are not the only extreme source of noise on that parcel. The shape of the hill accross the street and lensing effects of the cool air masses that settle in the low areas nearby focus the noises of the nearby airport onto the middle of the parcel. When I had a shop on that parcel I came up with a 12 foot high row stack of pallet boxes to tone the airport sounds down to a level that didn't rattle the dust out of the rafters, and drive any thoughts out of my office. I don't think that the hill across the street is going to move or change its shape. Also, the new socker field sits in a bowl such that a simular intensification of sound after being reflected by the focusing shape of the hill curving around the field. People who were unfortunate enough to live on the parcel may find socer field conversations burowing into their heads even with out the loud speakers that seem to carry for miles anyway. I think that the people on this parcel will justifiably be converted to a pack of complainers. There will be plenty of light in the night with the soccer field activities and their mega lights, and the adjacient property to the north will be a large car sales agency with its associated display lot lights, and probably a public address system, too. And the irony of this proposal is they claim they will convince the residents to walk to the market yet be next door to a mega car agency. There is a public address system and yard security lights in use at Darrel's _ L rA Attachment 7 Storage, the parcel to the south, so there will be no shortage of sounds to complain about. Beside the detremental sound focusing characteristics of the hill across the street, it gives early shade in the late afternoon. This may be ok for people who work all day and come home late and don't mind the chill of the shade, but it is not a good location for family living situations in high density because other off site areas that happen to be neighboring businesses will have to bare the brunt of being the next closer attractive places to play. We in the industrial area would not like to be the defacto play ground of the kids of 170 licenced drivers projected to live on the parcel. We have activities in our businesses that do not need the distractions and annoyance of having children at play mixing it up with our fork lifts and exposure to our industral processes. No good can come out of the distractions and possible accidents that are likely when you mix industry with baby sitting. Heaven forbid that a child should suffer an injury, but they are not the only ones at risk of injury or worse. Many things could go wrong when a machine operator is distracted, and a lapse of attention caused by a sudden intrusion to kids at play in our work spaced could lead to a fatal accident and for us as businesses to be exposed to such would be hostile to safe working conditions and open up the re-evaluation of insurance rates upwards in cost. The industrial neighbors have nothing to gain from such a take take situation, higher insurance, more distractions, and affected productivity. What is needed is to design the project with a goal of not attracting people with kids to the detriment of the existing businesses in the neighborhood that have invested a lot in the extabulishment of their businesses. It has been expressed that this will be a place for the worker of our businesses to live. That is ok, but if while they are off to work for the long hours it takes to pay for housing, our businesses may become the baby sitter to their Httaunment kids by default if families are encouraged to live there. What we need of this project is for it not to be the condominiums and single units in the core but something more attractive to non family units. Certainly other options could be considered. I would suggest an enclive of row shops with living spaces upstairs would be non threatening to the rest of the industrial users and if there were businesses on the parcel they would be on the front lines of dealing with troublesome children of their own camp. It has been in the council discusions of encouraging the shop keeper living over his shop. This would be an excelent opportunity to test this on a significant scale. Not only would living spaces be created but more service shops could be provided for start up businesses and the impact on the neighboring business in a uniquely extreme industrally active block would be more acceptable if it didn't add to much to the parking problems. I feel that more occuppied businesses in the area would be good for deterring crime in the neighborhood, while just residents would attract a lot of evening and night visitors to the area while the other businesses are closed and expose them to the problem of people wandering around at night. Work studios and other small businesses would be welcome even if they had living space above that were as apartments, because the business below would not tolerate misbehavior. Better yet would be to keep it all industrial commercial in use. There is a problem with the high water table in this area that much of that parcel was part of a marsh that has been covered over and the well for that parcel is only six feet down to the water. I witnessed many a truck in the landfilling process after driving just a few times over the same spot break thru the crust and sink up to the axel, as the wet clay below would liquify from the kneeding action of the wheels rolling over the same spot. I do not concider the Auacnment 7 7 conditions of the high water table to contribute to a safe healthy place for family residences with the slab, two by, and drywall style of construction proposed. There is good reason for the parcel to the north to have such a large parking lot in front of the old market building. The parking lot was built out on marsh ground as evidenced by the particular crack up pattern in the asphalt indicating near surface water conditions. This is the wrong project for this location because it injects itself into the middle of the block with the ablolute highest truck traffic and the most neighboring industrial noises adjacient to the parcel and the most intensely used block in the whole nearby area. The harvest of planting residents into this block will be complaints by the bushel, and the complaints will be flying in both directions. Some conditions to the project need to be concidered, a start would be to outlaw complaints and not build for families in this uniquely saturated with diesel engines block of Sacramento Drive. What would be the position of the city when someone in this project sees the opportunity to set up a business in his house? Would they be able to do the activities permissable in our zoning just because they are in the right zoning? Could manufacturing on a small scale to fit in the condo be ok? What are their limits? Would they receive industrial grade inspection scrutiny? r -,' Attachment 7 Donald E . Hedrick r' A C31EATIVE WELDINGSER VICE MERGING ARTENGWEERIi CFAA CTICAL:r7"Y AND ELL nUCTECYBVOLOGY FV=THESTRENGTH OFAN OLD FOAK TRUCA P.O. Box 343, San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Phone (805) .541-0303 E-mail encouraged donhedrick techx ressnet.com Sunday, July 20, 2003 As a business in the same block as the project in the 3600 block of Sacramento Drive for over a quarter of a century I have particular knowledge and concerns of the development proposed. I find it disconcerting that such a project that alters the character of the neighborhood by the wholesale mixing of a cluster of dense residential use bisecting the long standing comercial industrial zone usage. The high density of housing could attract more cars to the neighborhood than all the emloyees of all the businesses combined. Since the Monday meeting is the first official notice I wonder- if al l the requirements for public input were followed for such a drastic diversion from the current zoning. I . When it rains Sacramento street flows full of water from curb to curb in that section of the street. A. lot of traffic in and out of driveways may generate surges of water on to the property and require drainage paths. e: 2. Street lights. This is about the last development in the block oii Sacramento and there are inadaquate lights in general on the whole E street due to its long existance on county standards. Will the new L) project put a light in the planned cadence on the other side of the a street. as well as the one on its side. Also worth noting is the lack ol' street lights in general on the whole two blocks of streets leading to Attachment 7 the shopping at the Marigold Center. Since it is this project that is bringing residential use to this industrial neighborhood, and perhaps; elevated standards to the whole block, I think that more lights should be installed for the general public safety and crime prevention in the whole block as that many residences will cause al; increase in night traffic. That increase in night traffic will have to go thru some particularly dimly lighted section of the street that bares the overflow parking of the night club on its busy nights with many people crossing the street in the dark. It is not without president for a project to be required to install street lights beyond the immediate project as a mitigation of negitive impacts on the community. With out extra street lights it is a long dark sidewalk to walk to the shopping center.- 3. enter:3. The bicycle path on Sacramento eliminates the use of the street for parking of cars. I fear the overflow parking from such a complex will impact the businesses in the rest of the block. Will the street be widened extra wide to allow parking, even diagonal?, and still have the bicycle path. The irony of the bicycle path is that it is land locked with a locked gate into the tract to the south and has to double back to conect to Broad St. and no connection to any other bike paths to the north. The bike path status of Sacramento Ur. places extreme pressure on the street to provide enough parking for the existing business uses of the neighborhood. 4. I am not in favor of the industrial complex that I am a part of becoming a defacto play ground for the children of so many units o(' housing two parcels away. There are various processes being used in the industrial zone that could pose a hazard to the public and the distractions of kids playing in our work spaces places undue risk to the people in the businesses and the children intruding into our work Attachment 7 Attachment 7 - Correspondence submitted by Richard Nielson a13S Attachment 7 29 A11rr Zoog/ 2 V, D CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APR 21 2004 3592 So Broad Project Commentary, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Goal 7.1 Neighborhood Quality. Maintain, preserve and enhance the quality of neighborhoods, encourage neighborhood stability and improve neighborhood appearance and function. Enhancement Rebuttal's To Goal 7. L A) In the 3592 Project the Neighborhood Quality is Low, akin to what one would expect in a Commercial-Industrial Zoned Area. The only enhancements one might expect is lifeguard Towers along Sacramento St when the Flood Plane is active. B)The neighboorhood has waited far longer than most other neighboorhood's for enhancements such as Flood Control- Sacramento St is a river of water that averages about 2-5 inches in depth in the area of the proposed development-if the street can't be kept out of the natural flood plane via drainage where will the additional runoff resultant from additional paved and constructed over percolation area, go? Possibly "Lake" Sacramento St as the "locals" call it. C) Neighboorhood Stability doesn't exist as their are no local residents. Isolated and Locked Bicycle Paths are not part of Stability, nor are they an enhancement. Neighborhood stability come from those of us who live locally and are able to weigh the long-term costs that a decision beyond current zoning guidelines would cost in expansionist growth. D) What will the City do when a Resident applies US Supreme Court Equalization Laws to their Neighborhood. That Means, SAME AIR QUALITY, SOUND ` LEVELS and TRAFFIC LOADS as that of other Residential Neighborhoods in SLO. E) Capitolio Way has yet to be addressed, it should be widened with a Left Turn Lane and a Attachment 7 Page 2 of 13 Signal Added, as should have been done several years ago, 5-7 minute waits are not uncommon if one gets trapped in the Big Rigs and normal traffic drainage. Forgetful of taking Industrial Way to Exit the area can be very time consuming. The Signal would aid slowing of So Broad St Traffic. And widening would aid Truckers that must turn onto Capitolio Way, which really impedes traffic movement. 7,2.1 Within established neighborhoods, new development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. Rebuttal's To Goal 7.2.1; A) This on tells the truth of who the Planning Commission Represents in the Failure to Red-Stamp the whole 3592 So Broad Project "Rejected" on the First Submission Review. B) It is a Commercial-Industrial Zoned Property go look at the Master Zone Map, its available at 990 Palm Street, in the Lobby. As it apprears it hasn't been reviewed by the Planning Commission for many years-unless their's an Forgetfulness Epidemic within the Commission. C) Neighborhood Character is Commercial-Industrial, at night The Graduate Night Club attracts a diverse crowd but does well in neighborhood cleanup of trash that accumulates following the patrons use of the facility and accompanying parking areas.. Uniquely, its the "Southside Mayor" that does the Trash Cleanup. And during daytime the Goodwill Store creates significant traffic. Goodwill has yet to Open there Restrooms to the Public under California Business and Professions Code 7351. People are still turned away at the Goodwill Outlet Store Cashier when inquiring for a Restroom. The Graduate has less than 40 Employees and has Attachment 7 Page 3 of 13 to take most of those fortunate enough to survive the trek, when nature calls. Maybe we should start calling the police when we need a Restroom at Goodwill, and request a Citation to be issued. 7351.Every establishment shall provide at least one public toilet room located on or near the premises for its patrons. Any toilet room installed on or after July 1, 1992, shall be not less than 18 square feet in area. The entrance to the room shall be effectively screened so that no toilet compartment is visible from any workroom. The room shall be kept in a clean condition and in good repair, well lighted and ventilated to the outside air, and effectively screened against insects and free from rodents. The floor shall be of concrete, tile laid in cement, vitrified brick, or other nonabsorbent material. All sewer drains shall be connected to an approved disposal system, and shall be properly trapped. No restroom shall be used for storage. 7352. Every establishment shall provide adequate and convenient handwashing facilities, including running water, soap and approved sanitary towels. D) Under 7.2.1, nobody expects to have to maintain a residential quality of life for future residents either existing, or, of the future. It is a flood plane where life could be compromised, or, the Fire Dept would be obligated into rescues therby overwhelming its resources for other emergency's. Then their becomes the question of where to put the residents when a flood takes place and who pays that bill. Again its Commercial-Industrial not the Residential Island to be in a Sea of Disconituity of Commercial-Industrial Structures, Fumes, Noise Propagation and Possible.Electro Magnetic Field Toxicity. E) The 3592 So Broad Project will be situated over Groundwater that is less than 5 feet below the present soil surface. 7.2.5 The creation of walled off residential enclaves, or of separate, unconnected tracts, is discouraged because physical separations prevent the formation of safe, walkable, and enjoyable neighborhoods. Rebuttal's To Goal 7.2.5; A) Here's another series of truth's about why the 3592 So Broad Attachment 7 Page 4 of 13 Project should have been Rejected On First Submission Review. It will be a SEPARATE UN-CONNECTED TRACT. B) THEIR WILL BE NO CONTIGUOUSLY SAFE WALKABLE and ENJOYABLE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS. Surrounding the 3592 So Broad Project Property we find Commercial-Industrial, and 2 High Volume Heavy Laden Vehicle type Streets. C) PHYSICAL SEPARATIONS ENCLOSE the 3592 PROJECT from ANY OTHER SIMILAR PROJECT. D) ALL OTHER LOCAL CONSTRUCTION MEETS Zoning Requirements. E) The 3592 So Broad Project DOES NOT MEET ZONE REQUIREMENTS. Will this become the "White Elephant" of the PLANNING COMMISSION'S POTENTIAL CORRUPTION of the CITY'S LONG-TERM STATED GOALS. F) If the Project goes forward, Naming it Masada would seem most appropiate. 7.2.6 Housing shall be sited to enhance safety along neighborhood streets and in other public and semi-public areas. Rebuttal's To Goal 7.2.6; How do we Best Enhance Safety in the AREA of the PROPOSED Unknown Ammount of LEVELS of ZONING CHANGES? A) We logically don't Re-Zone the Area to Meet the Investment Profits for those that would turn the City's Goals Into a Commitment That Has Passed. B) The District Attorney should forward a Certified Copy of the Master Zone Plan to all Party's Supporting the 3592 So Broad Project. Somebody in Planning Must Have Never Seen It. C) Realize the Safety Concerns of Potential Disease Vectors, Flood Plane Problems and Unwary Residents being Crushed by Oversized Vehicles. The C Attachment 7 Page 5 of 13 Environmental Hazards such as Diesel Fumes that are Cumulative Similar to that of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, and Sewage that is always found in Floods. Is the Builder or Developer willing to Pay for additional 24 hour safety monitors for perpituity, or will the Taxpayers Bear The Burden of Cost, Whatever the Uncaculable Sum May Be. D) Perhaps its time those that continue to support the 3592 So Broad Project be Cited for Betraying the Publics Trust and that some ZONE READY PROJECT be Sited on the Land in Question. Bias has already been noted in previous Planning Commission Meetings. When the 3592 So Broad Project Developers were given an unequal ammount of time to present the Project to the City At Large. One Local Citizen was Limited to 3 Minutes , the Developer had a Combined 55 Minutes, or nearly 1700% more Speaking Time. 7.3. 1 Implement varied strategies to ensure residents are aware of and able to participate in planning decisions affection their neighborhoods early in the planning process. Rebuttal's To Goal 7.3.1; A) Implement What? with what RESIDENTS PARTICIPATION their are none in the Project Area that is Part of a Significant Parcel of a Contiguous Commercial-Indstrial Zoned, Series of Adjacent Properties with Very Little Open Land Remaining. That's Supposed to Already Have Been Addressed as City Goals and Accepted Commitments. No Residents, its Comercial- Industrial. Clearly marked on the Master Zoning Map and City Master Plan. B) Is Living in Sewage on the Agenda for those Un-Fortunate enough to be Manipulated into the Albatross of SLO's Goals when a 100 or, 500 Year Flood Takes Place.. C) If we are to TRUST the Planning Commission to follow the ,�% 1�© Attachment 7 Page 6 of 13 Citys Goals as Guidelines, then WE ARE IN TROUBLE AS A CITY of Solitude, Open Space and Unique Charm. Where Visitor and Resident Levels are Optimal for the Business Communities Profits Factored into Upper Income Living Conditions. Give People a taste of SLO's Quality of Lifestyle then Factor in Increased Population Density and most of the Negatives of Overdevelopment will Follow. Which calls for a Psychologial Impact Study to be done to aid focus of the 3592 So Broad Project as well as the next round of colligy of the Citys Goals as they are Considered for Future Generations of Family's that Presently Reside in SLO City Neighborhoods. Old Timers have probably at best a vague idea of what is to come if the City as a WHOLE doesn't STOP UNCONTROLLED GROWTH and IMPROPER ZONING PRECEDENTS. Those of us from a Metropolis left the Mistakes. E) I hope that some Litigants find all this data if the 3592 So Broad Project if is Approved for Future Libeling Encumberments to the City who will "Bear the Burden" while the developer is off to their Open Space and the Residents in the Aftermath of their Profits while leaving the Taxpayers the Liabilities. F) What is the additional Insurance Premium for City Liabilities when all these Points are Actuaried into the Premium. And WHO IS GOING TO PAY for ERRORS AND OMISSIONS for the NEXT CENTURY? 7.3.2 Identify specific neighborhood needs, problems, trends and opportunities for improvements. Work directly with neighborhood groups and individuals to address concerns. Rebuttal's To Goal 7.3.2; A) Read the Numerous Rebuttals that would clearly make 3 Points Attachment 7 Page 7of13 of Law Necessary to Stop the Project. And the Voters have not yet spoken, as they did recently in Inglewood, California over a Growth Issue. I believe the City At Large is Concerned Enough to want the 3592 Broad St Project to Not Be A Precedent Setting Concern. B) Numerous Peoples have attempted to Enlighten the Planning Commission as to the Errors of its Ways by Re-Addressing Apparent Concerns that are Directly Contradictory to the Citys Goals and Guidelines. C) Do we have to bring the Federal Government's Investigative Abilities into the Case to Show where all the Gratuities Went and the specific ammounts of Money that has been Delivered, as well as to who? Betrayal of the Publics Trust is why Politicians in Latin means "Many Blood Suckers." Would anybody like to do Full Disclosure, or, at least Maxima Culpa? D) If anybody was paying Ethical Attention to the 3592 So Broad Proposal, the Stated Goals would have Caused a Plan Reject On First Review,just as it did when a Personal Friend tried to utilize their Open Area for I Level of Zoning Change, that was Rejected Locally. Across the Street was Acceptable to Expand a Home with Adequate Open Property and Like Construction, they are relocating out of SLO as Former Long- Term Residents. 7.3.3 Help fund neighborhood improvements, including sidewalks, traffic calming devices, crosswalks, parkways, street trees, and street lighting to improve the asthetics, safety and accesibility within neighborhoods. Rebuttal's to Goal 7.3.3; A) Is Acceptance of the Proposed 3592 So Broad project the Way the City Plans to Fund Curbing, Landscaping, Traffic Calming a-��a Attachment 7 Page 8 of 13 Devices, Parkways, Lighting, Asthetics, Safety and Neighborhood Accessibility? B) Did we all miss something when we Re-Located to this City from the Mistakes of the Metropolis' that Approval of the 3592 Project will SET A PRECEDENT FOR. Fund the Improvements without Rezoning for Capital Profits resulting from The Increase of Estimated Taxes from Higher Investment to Profit Ratios Gained from an Improperly Applied Abuse of the Planning Commission's Powers who should be Proactivly Protecting the City's Published Goals. C) What are Traffic Calming Devices-Medications prescribed to the Loved Ones of the New Resident that just got Run Over by a Driver doing in Excess of 75 MPH on So Broad, or, Crushed by a Big-Rig that is Expected to be in the area, that some Toddler got "interested in?" D) As to Asthetics-lets see if the Planning Commission got that one clearly, Hill On 1 Side with High .Speed Street Adjacent, Big Rigs on 3 Sides, Diesel Fumes all Night with Accompanying Low Frequency Vibrations. Generation of Police Calls, and Legal Complaints, Commercial-Industrial on 3 Sides and don't forget the Great Wall of the Planning Commission's Neglience of Rational Logic being Applied to City Goals, and the Hgh-Voltage Electrical Lines that Pass nearby the Property Line of the 3592 So Broad Project and the Potential Contributory EMF--Vectors. Or,-the Prop Plane Departure Vibrations from a Variable Pitch Prop in the very early hours of the morning. E) Will Grief Counseling become a Necessity when any of Our Addressed Fears, Vectors, or, Goals that went Ignored become a Reality. I believe they call it Grossly Negligent Actions. F) Accesibility and Safety Concerns-Plenty of that for Big Rigs, Drive By Toxic Bombers and Liquor Bottle Dumping from Passers by who utilize the Area for illegal drinking, car abandonment, r�uaunrrlef)i / 4 1 Page 9 of 13 Locked Bicycle Pass-Throughs and Un-Fenced Railroad Accesses in the Area. As well as the need for a Widening of Capitolo Way at Broad St. 7.3.4 Continue to develop and impliment neighborhood parking strategies, including parking districts to address the lack of on-off street parking in residential areas. Rebuttal's To Goal 7.3.4; A) How does the City Intend on Increasing Parking On-Street to Address Residential Overflow from the Proposed 3592 project. When a plethora of Friends, Vendors, Servants, Contractor's, Partiers and Familial Growth all come at Once. Multiple Cars Per Resident as well as the needs of Truckers Coupling up Trailers with no additional areas available for COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL PARKING NEEDS and the EXPECTED OVERFLOW of Patrons to the Already Established Businesses-will they all Park Around City Hall and the Courthouse to Argue Planning Commission's Errors and Omissions? Truckers will have no alternative except to partially obstruct traffic flow while coupling or de-coupling trailers and tractors. B) Impact Reports Can be Retained, but with what truthful level of accuracy? C) I wish most of those that have already been participants in City Parking Strategys, could come enjoy the Ironbark St Delemma, when those of us who do not have Assigned Parking must deal with almost daily when no Street Parking Spaces are Available for Transient Traffic and their is no allotment for the regular overflow of extra vehicles vs space available and then the Residents start complaining and relocating because their visitors have no where to park. 9.2.1.c Design dwellings for quiet, indoors and out, for both the Attachment 7 Page 10 of 13 mental and physical health of residents. Rebuttal's To Goal 9.2.1.c; A) This will show the truth as to what the City's Combined Wisdom Yielded in the Future Effects about Growth Decisions and how they will again be applied to the 3592 So Broad Project. And, why its so apparent that nobody has built dwellings in an area clearly designated on the Master Zoning Map as NOT HABITABLE for DWELLINGS when both MENTAL and PHYSICAL HEALTH CONCERNS BECOME APPARENT. For of us who are INFORMED ABOUT PLANNING ERRORS of OTHER CITIES, their LIABILITIES IN HUMAN STRESS FOR THOSE PLANNING ERRORS. And how the QUALITY OF LIFE DEGRADES as Population Increases. Error on the Side of Prudent and Responsible Decisions. The Psychological Impact Study will Influence these statements. B) If the GREAT WALL comes Tumbling Down in an.Earthquake or the Dangerous high-voltage Lines Electrocute Numerous Residents or Cause them to be Burned to Death. Will we have to say we tried in the interests of City Goals to stop Trauma's from Occuring Before they Realized a Grossly Neglent Error that is Litigable in some future Lawsuit, or, do we coverup the original errors? C) Build Elevated Bunkers for Dwellings they are the only thing that can withstand Falling: Power Towers, Sound Abatment Walls for Noise Dampnening from the Airport. High-Voltage Lines create Subliminal Stress as does Subsonic Sound. And for purposes of Equality Laws Install Air Filtration Systems Comparable to Those Found in The White House and Supreme Court. We must Preserve the Physical and Mental Health of those who may inhabit the 3592 So Broad Dwellings. D) If the Planning Commission doesn't Approve Dwellings, as most Cities Goals Decisions about Growth Related Zoning have Attachment 7 Page 11 of 13 taught us, most of the Stress is induced whenever Residential- Industrial-Commercial Mixes have become a reality. Historically, these Changes, particular to the Extreme of Multiple Levels of zoning changes Stray towards a Radical Departure from Normal Zoning Change of 1 level, on OCCASION. 11.2.2 Prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved as dedicated open space or parks, on sites subject to natural hazards such as unmitigatable geological or flood risks, or wild fire dangers, and on sites subject to unacceptable levels of man-made hazard or nuisances, including severe soil contamination, airport noise or hazards, traffic noise or hazards, odors or incompatable neighboring uses. Agreement to 11.2.2; A) Here's an Ideal Area to Leave a Historical Open Space that Bridged, or, Tunneled to the New Playing Field Across and Diagonal to the Purposed 3592 So Broad Project. Nice Area for Pond for Birds to safely refresh during migration, or residents to see the last of the Old Ranch Style Chicken Coops. 11.3.1 The city will adopt measures ensuring the ability of legally conforming non-residential uses to continue where new housing is proposed on adjacent or nearby sites. Rebuttal's To Goal 11.3.1; A) Measures such as those taught in a Wilderness Texts would encourage the City Council to adopt Legal Non-Residential uses to continue to blend the Hill to the sea habatat which is seriously encroached upon for large animal transiet habitat. Few animal rights of way exist in the area and deer don't do Chevron maps. This is Part of a Legal Environmental Nexus, which points to a -1 Attachment 7 Page 12 of 13 Properly Utilizing the remaining open area concept being very strategically implemented in this area. Keeping the trout feeding tributaries filtered for their downstream habitat calls for a Fish and Wildlife Impact Study. Trout don't like asphalt detergents at all- messes 'em up something terrible-try drinking asphalt runoff and its accompanying detergents you won't enjoy it. Transitory animals need nature to be blended with habitated areas by Professional Wildlife Management Techniques. Chickens, Racoons, Possums, Skunks, Feral Cats, Rodents and Deer are regularly seen in the area. We have an excellent opportunity to implement a Study for Non-Residential use of the Property. B) Let Residential be Blended with Like-Kind and Commercial- Industrial be Blended with Like-Kind, then all will conform to 11.3.1. 17.02.020 Purpose. These regulations are intended to guide the development of the city in an orderly manner, based on the adopted general plan, to protect and enhance the quality of the natural and built environment, and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare by regulating the use of land and buildings and the location and basic form of structures. (Ord. 941 § I (part), 1982: prior code § 9201.2) If we don't have Dwellings in the Target Area, as most Cities Decisions about Growth Zoning have Reflected. Residential- Industrial-Commercial Mixes have taught us one significant lesson and that is to Avoid them. Changes in Zoning particularly to the Extreme of Multiple Levels, Point towards the beginning of a Trend. An already precedent setting acceptance that even a single Level of Zoning Change comes with Geat Difficulty for Understandable Reasons and Straying to Radical Departures from Normal Zoning Requirements of an Occasional Single Level of Rezoning May Be More than the Delecate Community Balance can Tolerate. Please make your Decision Wisely, Otherwise, Put It to a Vote. Attachment 7 Page 13 of 13 Submitted 21 April 2004 By R.Nielson-Resident 185 Craig SLO, CAA3405. a -�Lw Attachment 7 rwryoF SAP; LU'`_ September 11,2003 I ( 6 SLO City Planning Commission-Attachment i 990 Palm St, SLO, CA 93401 COMMUNITY DEVELUf ivitr+l j Re: 3592 Broad Street,Mixed Use Development; PD 24-03 As an attendant to September 10, 2003; 7PM Meeting,as scheduled, I felt intimidated to say what I felt I wanted to,when Mr. Hedrick was given a reduced time to speak period..Mr. Hedrick was given a 3 minute Time Window and 2 of the Developers group was allowed almost 30 minutes to snake their presentation over PD 24-03's Agenda and commentary period. Based on the Chairman's Original Notice of a 5 Minutes to Speak Period..I therefore Petition that in the fairness of Equal Time For All. That my Comments be included as an Attachment into the Record so that all applicable Points be Duly Considered. And that Mr. Hedrick be given Additional Time at the Next meeting(s)to Address His Points in the Application Process for PD 24-03. A posting of each Speaker's"minutes"should be implemented. Attachment's: 1)That the City Planning Commission start being Pro-Active in the Communities Best Long-Term Slow Growth Interests as the Community has I believe, historically Voted in similar issues. a)That the larger problem of Remote Legislative Regulations that have been corrupted primarily for money interests that systemically destroy Urban Openness in favor of it becoming a Large Parking Lot,while Investors Profit. Like Los Angeles and the Bay Area has become. While the Developers Languish in Remote Open Areas and Resorts throughout the World with proceeds from Real Estate Investments. And local residents are left in there long-term aftermath of Traffic and Pollution. note 1: One of our primary attractants is OPEN SPACE,and those of us who live here well know it. note 2: There is a Rapidly Disappearing Uniqueness in SLO TOWN. b)Unless the VOTERS get the Right to Vote on Rights of Community Growth Choice's, we will be Completely Connected to the Bay Area and Los Angeles in about 25 Years by Structural Landscaping. note 1: Under the Application of Democratic Principles(not the Party)this should be Testable and Win-able under Good Application of Law. note 2: If a Community doesn't make a choice to Set President Very Soon it will be too late to Survive with the Communities Uniqueness and Individuality. We will become part of a Megalopolis. c)A Community Commission Best Represents itself when the Communities Best Interests are Tested as a Whole at the Ballot Box,backed by the Integrity of people Honestly Counting and Reporting the Results. d)Do not assume that the Legislature is comprised of Righteous and Honest People with our Communities best interests being a Priority in any of their agenda-unless someone stands to profit from their Legislation via"backdoor methodologies," ie;bribes,perks and favors,aka:polities. e)In the Communities Best Interests,Research Where the Investors are Investing in Property and Development and one will see another Metropolis Developing and Community Standards in Decline. 2)That the Environmental Impact Report be amended to Include Diesel/Kerosene Fumes effects on Humans,Both Short and Long-Term in a Low Lying Pocket of Stagnant Air.The Effects of 200 Full Time Residents and Vehicles have on the Surrounding Environment including Downtown. 3)That Safety Study's include the excessive speeds generated on Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road,the Author has regularly clocked drivers going 70-75 MPH NW Bound when Police are not present. 4)That a Study be implemented to show the effects of Parking Changes on Sacramento Street and that the Tractor-Trailer"Rigs"common to the area after Midnight be included,as well as,Long-Term Tractor Trailer Parking on the same street,and current Employee Parking from local Businesses. 5)That if approval of 12 Foot Walls is implemented in new construction zones,what will the Litigious "Fallout"be when Residents start requesting Waivers for Higher Walls and Fences around there Properties and Cite this Pending Approval. Let CS stand on its reasonability and don't set a new precedent. 6)That the Planning Commission and the Developer in Item 2 take note that the City Master Zoning Plan Denoted the Desired Land Use many years ago. a-�49 Attachment 7 Page 2 of 2 7)The Auto Dealership that is allegedly withdrawing from Development on the Adjacent Parcel by re-factoring all Planning Commission Study's of the Physical Area near PD 24-03. And that Zoning stay"AS IS"in the CS Area. 8)That Water Runoff is Calculated to include Upstream Paving, Roofing Area Runoff and Open Land Subject to Future Development,including 500 year Flood Control Agency Calculations and Data. Sincerely, Richard Nielson Resident of San Luis Obispo, California. Attachment 7 Attachment 7: Public correspondence in support of the project proposal Ca ISI _ Attachment 7 I. ;BURKE CORPORATIC 865 CAPITOLIO WAY — P.O. BOX 957 SAN Lois OBISPO, CA 93406-0957 PHONE (805) 543-8568 FAX (805) 543-2521 LICENSE No. 264193 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER June 21, 2004 Chairman Caruso and Planning Commission Members City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Planning Commission Meeting, May 5, 2004 Broad Street Mixed Use Dear Chairman Caruso and Planning Commission Members: I would like to express my support for the Broad Street Mixed Use project. My office is located about a block away on Broad Street and I feel this project would be an excellent addition to the area. The combination of commercial and residential uses provides the City with the type of mixed use project that is needed, given the current housing situation. The location, next to shopping and the City recreation fields, also allows for a more pedestrian friendly environment. The Roadhouse project, currently being competed, is a little further up Broad Street. It is also a mixed use project, with commercial and residential uses in the same buildings. These kinds of developments are beginning to shape the area with a more modem approach to land use planning and should be encouraged. Sincerely, R. Burke Corporation Robert E. Burke Vice President REB/cmc Reu..UOD LLettersTity o(SLO•Broad Street Mixed Use.doe K(A 7 [COMMUNITY AN LUIS OBISP quo No 11 COMMERCIAL&INVESTMENT REAL EUTATE N 12 DEVELOPMENT June 21, 2004 Chairman Caruso and Planning Commission Members City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Re: Planning Commission Meeting 6/23/04 Broad Street Mixed Use Dear Chairman Caruso and Planning Com mission.Members: I would like to express my support for the Broad Street Mixed Use project. I feel that it is an innovative project that will serve both the commercial and residential needs of San Luis Obispo residents. Sincerely, Derek Senn 860 OSOS STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 TEL(805)781-6116 • FAX(805)781-6099 • WWW.SENNREALTY.COM -Member o/the Society o/industrial&Office.Realtor Attachment 7 Steven D.Pults AIA&Associates April 30, 2004 Chairman Caruso and Planning Commission Members City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Planning Commission Meeting, May 5, 2004 Broad Street Mixed Use Dear Chairman Caruso and Planning Commission Members: I would like to express my support for the Broad Street Mixed Use project. My office is located about a block away on Broad Street and I feel this project would be an excellent addition to the area. The combination of commercial and residential uses provides the City with the type of mixed use project that is needed, given the current housing situation. The location, next to shopping and the City recreation fields, also allows for a more pedestrian friendly environment. We are currently finishing up the Roadhouse project, a little further up Broad Street. It is also a mixed use project, with commercial and residential uses in the same buildings. These kinds of developments are beginning to shape the area with a more modem approach to land use planning and should be encouraged. Sincerely, ven D. Pults, A.I.A. Architecture,Planning&!2n aphics 3450 Broad Street—Sidle 106 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 (805) 591-5604 Fax(805)5414371 -� Attachment 8 FISCAL IMPACT Overview. Shifting General Plan land uses from seven acres of service-commercial to 61 housing units will have a small adverse fiscal impact on the City. Background. Because of the nature of State-local fiscal relationships in California, the fiscal impact of development by land use type is relatively predictable for cities throughout the state, and San Luis Obispo is no exception. For example, a number of fiscal impact analyses prepared for the City over the past several years (including for the General Plan, Airport Area, Margarita Area, San Luis Marketplace and Court Street projects) all reached the same basic conclusion: 1. Housing of all types will be a consistent "fiscal loser:" the underlying revenue structure in California cities simply won't generate—even under the most favorable of circumstances— the revenues necessary from housing units to service its residents. For this reason, a reasonable amount of non-residential uses is needed to offset this. 2. Office, business park and industrial uses are largely break-even: service costs are relatively low, but so are related revenues. Some of these uses may have significant sales tax revenues due to "business-to-business" sales (which represent about 15% of total City sales tax revenue); however, because of the wide range of uses allowed in these zones; this is difficult to project, even on a case-by-case basis. 3. Hotels are almost always "fiscal winners" due to relatively low service costs and directly- related transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues. 4. Retails uses may be fiscal winners if they respond to a demonstrated unmet need (typically measured by where sales per capita in the City or region for a specific type of use are below State averages). Otherwise, new retail is largely just redistributing the demand (and related sales tax revenue) that already exists; and in this case, at best it will be fiscally neutral. Accordingly, this type of analysis is much more meaningful at the General Plan level: since the "per unit costs and revenues" are relatively predictable,the net fiscal impact is determined by the overall balance of these uses. The City did this type of analysis as part of the 1994 General Plan update, and overall our land use plan at that time was "fiscally balanced" In this context, we can best evaluate fiscal impacts based on their consistency with the General Plan. From a fiscal perspective, the proposed project will shift seven acres from service commercial, which is usually a "break-even" land use type, to 61 housing units, which is usually a "fiscal loser." While this shift moves in a fiscally adverse direction, the net impact will be minor, since the changes themselves are minor: we are not losing a big "fiscal winner," and we are not adding a large number of housing units. Why approve any developments with adverse fiscal impacts? Because our City does not exist solely to be fiscally healthy—if we did, we would have no residents, and the only development would be car dealerships, large discount stores and mail-order computer sales desks. This would be a fiscally healthy city, but who would want to live here? And this is our purpose: to help create a place where people want to live, work and play. (Or as the General Plan says: "provide a setting for comfortable living, including work and recreation.") To do this does require adequate fiscal resources—but this is a means, not an end in itself. In summary on this point, ,rlr (�;� Attachment 8 while we cannot ignore fiscal realities, land use decisions should never be driven by fiscal considerations alone, but by our vision for the future as expressed in the General Plan. Fiscal Impact Summary. In this case, while the proposed land use change moves us in fiscally adverse direction, the impact will be minor because the change itself is minor. As such, factors other than fiscal impact should be considered in evaluating the desirability of the proposed change. - Attachment 9 City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A USE PERMIT,VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR A MIXED-USE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH 82 DWELLINGS AND 31,280 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA U/TR/ER 24-03 (3592 Broad Street) WHEREAS, the City Council 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 August 3, 2004, for the purpose of considering Application U/TR/ER 24-03, commonly referred to as the Broad Street Mixed-Use Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 23, 2004 and September 10, 2003, 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 hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for and has determined that the environmental document adequately addresses the. potential environmental impacts of 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 the Planning Commission and 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. Environmental Review. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies all of the potential impacts of the project and the mitigation measures and monitoring programs listed in Exhibit A are necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. Section 2. Subdivision Findings. The following findings are hereby made in support of the proposed condominium subdivision. 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for mixed use residential development, consistent with the requirements and limitations of the C-S zone. 2. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because the project helps meet the City's goal of maintaining a compact urban form. Attachment 9 City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 2 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under- developed site adjacent to existing street rights-of-way with complete City services. 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing City block, 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 is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the creek on the project site is going to be enhanced and maintained to provide significantly improved habitat over the current condition. 6. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems because environmental impacts, such as noise, are mitigated by design and buildings in the subdivision will be designed to meet existing building.and safety codes. 7. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because the project will not conflict with any existing easements. Section 3. Mixed Use Project Findings. The following findings are required by the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.08.072) and are hereby made in support of the proposed mixed use project. 1. The project's mixed uses are consistent with the General Plan and are compatible with their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other because (1) all of the uses proposed are allowed or conditionally allowed in the C-S zone, (2) as conditioned, adjacent environmental noise and manufacturing activities will be disclosed to residents of the project in the CC&R's, and (3) the uses that are allowed have been chosen to insure compatibility and this use permit may be reviewed by the City if reasonable written complaints are received from residents of the project or the Police Department. 2. The project's design protects the public health, safety and welfare because environmental impacts have been identified and mitigated in the design of the project and the project has been designed in a manner that is consistent with City standards and policies, such as the City's Waterways Management Plan. 3. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site because it provides a large number of residential units that are affordable by design, and provides for alternative transportation use by residents and employees (transit stop, showers and lockers for employees, a mix of services that keep employees and residents on-site during the lunch hour, located along bike route). � -iS4� Attachment 9 r City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 3 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 Mandatory Finding for More Restrictive Standards (parking limitations) 4. Site specific property development standards are needed to protect all proposed uses of the site and adjacent business because there is no on-street parking at either the Broad Street or Sacramento Drive frontages of the project site. 5. The proposed 30% mixed-use parking reduction is appropriate because parking areas on the site are shared and the peak hours of parking demand differ between the residential and commercial uses on the site. Section 4. Master Use Permit Findings. This permit is intended to serve as a Master Use Permit for Special Considerations, Restaurants, Medical Services — Doctor's Office, Office — Production and Administrative, and Office - Processing. Special Considerations (Required Findings) 1. The project is supported by Cal-Trans, which reviewed the preliminary design of the driveway entrances and exits and participated in the environmental review of the project. 2. Necessary public improvements are being secured through the permitting of the development, including frontage improvements, street trees, traffic signal improvements, street lighting and fire hydrants.. 3. Site drainage has been designed consistent with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan, in consideration of the unique site constraints,-such as the culvert of Orcutt Creek at the southwest property line. 4. The project insures safe, orderly development within the Broad Street Annexation Area because the project helps satisfy City goals for maintaining compact urban form and is consistent with the General Plan. Medical Services (Required Findings) 1. Medical services are compatible with surrounding land uses because adequate parking is provided on-site to accommodate a wide range of mixed uses and, as conditioned, 2. The project site is located along Broad Street, a street designated as an arterial, and Sacramento Drive, a street designated as a commercial collector in the Circulation Element and has convenient access to public transportation because of a transit stop located at the Broad Street project frontage. J; Attachment 9 City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 4 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 3. The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic in residential neighborhoods because the project site has access to Broad Street and is not located adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Public use of the proposed medical services does not require on-site traffic to pass through the residential area. 4. The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) because the Airport Land Use Commission approved offices for the project site and the overall development is consistent with the Safety Policies of the ALUP. 5. The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with medical services because the project site is especially suited for a mixed-use project because of its-location. Offices (Required Findings) 1. Offices will be compatible with existing and proposed uses in the area because the project site has access to Broad Street, public transportation, bike routes and convenience facilities for employees are anticipated on-site. 2. The project location will not significantly direct traffic to use streets in residential zones because there are no residential zones bordering the project site. 3. The project will provide adequate mitigation to address potential impacts related to noise, light and glare, loss of privacy and other impacts on nearby residential . areas because, as a mixed-use project, these considerations are integral part of the project design. 4. The project will not preclude industrial or service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses because the proposed location is more suited to the types of retail and service uses allowed in the Service Commercial zone, than it is to industrial uses because of the high visibility of the Broad Street corridor. 5. The project will not create a shortage of C-S zoned land available for service commercial or industrial development because there are vacant, developable and under-utilized properties through-out the City in the C-S zone and the City is currently developing Specific Plans for two major expansion areas that will be able to accommodate these uses. k.-III00 Attachment 9 City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 5 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 Section 6. Conditions of Approval. The Council does hereby establish the following conditions of approval. Mixed-Use Project Conditions 1. The Inclusionary Housing Requirement for the project is 10 ADUs. A minimum of 6 affordable dwelling units shall be provided by the developer in a manner consistent with the City's Affordable Housing Standards, to include at least 3 rentals and 3 for-sale units (two separate duplex units and one tri-plex unit, floor plans to the approval of the Community Development Director). No two Affordable Dwelling Units may be located within the same building. The applicant may pay a pro=rated Inclusionary Housing Fee to meet the full requirement, or provide four additional ADUs on site, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 2. Occupants of each residential unit within the project site shall be limited to a maximum collective ownership of two automotive vehicles (cars, trucks, vans). The.CC&R's for the project shall include an affidavit to this effect which must be signed by each owner or tenant as certification that each unit is in compliance with the requirement. The language of the affidavit shall be to the approval of the City Attorney and Community Development Director. 3. Garages within the project shall be used exclusively for parking vehicles and may not be used for general storage, recreation or other uses that would prevent the parking of vehicles as required by the Zoning Regulations. 4. CC&R's shall address use of facilities by non-resident guests, alcoholic beverage consumption in common areas, and shall provide sufficient penalties to address violations, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 5. The project CC&R's shall include a requirement that all owners and their tenants consent to the higher noise levels they will experience living on the project site, and that these noise levels may increase in the future as additional properties build out and existing businesses expand their operations. The CC&R's will state that the project site is located in an area designated for services and manufacturing and the City's Noise Ordinance does not include the same protections in this area as it does for residential neighborhoods, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 6. The Mixed Use Project is subject to the use matrix provided in Exhibit B of this resolution. Modifications to the use matrix require the approval of the Planning Commission. 7. Restaurant uses on the project site shall be required to include interior spaces for the storage of food scraps and other waste and shall contract for daily garbage service, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission or the Community Development �� ceA - Attachment 9 City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 6 3592 Broad Street, UMVER 24-03 Director. Refuse storage areas shall be kept clean and odor free. If trash must be relocated from the interior space of a restaurant to one of the exterior trash enclosures on- site, it shall be done as close as possible to the trash pick-up time. To address noise issues, plans for tenant improvements shall be evaluated to keep kitchen areas away from exterior doors and windows, where residential units are located above. 8. The CC&R's for the project shall.limit restaurant activities that create very strong odors, such as coffee roasting. Complaints relative to restaurant or other odors will be evaluated by the Administrative Hearing Officer, per condition #11. 9. Hours of operation for all commercial uses on the project site are limited to between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., unless the Director approves an Administrative Use Permit for extended hours. 10. The property managers for the project shall be required to maintain an updated and accurate parking calculation worksheet for the commercial portions of the project site. The worksheet shall be submitted to the Community Development Department with every use permit application required by this resolution. 11. This use permit shall be reviewed by the Administrative Hearing Officer if any reasonable written complaint is received from any citizen or from the Police Department. At the review hearing the Hearing Officer may establish additional conditions of approval as deemed necessary to insure on-going compatibility between commercial and residential uses on the project site. The Hearing Officer may refer the complaint to the Planning Commission at his/her discretion. 12. The applicant shall provide a continuous sidewalk between the project site and the Industrial Way intersection with Broad Street in order to provide residents of the project with safe and convenient access to the Damon Garcia Sports Fields. Transportation Conditions 1. Striping and Signage. The developer shall provide a signing and striping plan showing changes resulting from the project, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Said plan shall include travel lanes, bike lanes, traffic signals, street lighting, and associated signage. 2. Bicycle Lanes. The applicant shall stripe bicycle lanes along the project's Sacramento Drive frontage, consistent with the Bicycle Transportation Plan. Applicant shall submit a cross section plan for Sacramento Drive showing how the bike lanes will be accomplished across property frontage and adjoining parcels between Capitolio Way and the southern edge of the project site. a .t�a Attachment 9 City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 7 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 3. Main Driveway — The width of the main access drive shall be adjusted to accommodate one incoming lane and two outbound lanes (12 in minimum). 4. Prado Intersection. Project plans submitted for a building permit application shall include the most current Prado Road intersection information which will determine the location of handicap ramps and crosswalks on the project's Broad Street frontage. 5. Traffic Signals. Prior to the issuance of building permits, applicant shall request of receive from Caltrans all necessary permits to install traffic signals at the Capitolio— Broad and Prado-Broad Street intersections. As a condition of project occupancy, applicant shall complete the installation of said traffic signals, to the approval of Caltrans and the Public Works Director. All proposed traffic signals will be constructed with emergency preemption actuation (Opticom). If Caltrans does not support traffic signal installation at the time of issuance of the project's building permits, applicant shall install the traffic signal conduit and pull boxes and bond for the full cost of the signal's design and installation, for a period not less than five years and annually submit a signal warrant analysis to Caltrans and the City to monitor the need for signalization. The applicant is also required to provide an alternative traffic management plan (striping, turn movement restrictions, etc.) for approval by Cal Trans and the Public Works Director as a condition of occupancy. If the traffic signal is installed at the time of project development, applicantmay request partial reimbursement of costs from the Public Works Director as a credit toward the requisite transportation impact fee. If traffic signal installation is deferred pending Caltrans concurrence, applicant may request a rebate of a portion of the transportation impact fee at the time that the signal is actually installed. The amount of fee credits or rebates shall be as determined by the Public Works Director, taking into consideration the project's percentile contribution to forecasted traffic volume on Capitolio Way that causes level of service to exceed LOS D at the Capitolio-Broad intersection, or the percentile increase in average vehicle delay attributable to project traffic. 6. Pedestrian Facilities. The proposed pedestrian bridge over the creek that bisects the site shall have a minimum clear inside width of 2.4 in (8 feet) with ramps at either end to accommodate people with disabilities. Applicant shall provide an on-site pedestrian walkway connection from the Prado/Broad Street intersection to the residential development on the east side of the creek. 7. Broad Street Sidewalk. The public sidewalk on Broad Street shall be relocated to the edge of the public right of way to provide an additional landscape buffer between the sidewalk and Broad Street. a,<<,,3 Attachment 9 City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 8 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 8. Transit Turnout and Shelter. The applicant shall work with the City Transit Manager and owners of adjoining property to the north (Stanley Motors property) to establish a transit turnout and shelter along Broad Street. The turnout shall be located north of the project's Broad Street driveway and its design shall comply with Engineering Standard 4920, accommodating a single transit vehicle. The design of the transit shelter and the design and provision of any ancillary facilities (trash container, night lighting, benches, and signs) shall be consistent with standards contained in the City's Engineering Standards and the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). Applicant shall provide any additional right-of-way needed to accommodate the turnout. Applicant shall install all required improvements prior to project occupancy and shall receive a transportation impact fee credit for the documented costs of transit turnout construction. 9. Project CC&R's. The project's CC&& R's. shall include language notifying property- owners ropertyowners that Sacramento Drive is designated as a Class 2 bike route and when the bike lanes are installed, on street parking on Sacramento Drive will be removed. Public Right-of-way 1. 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.). Sidewalk along the Broad Street frontage shall be a 2m wide detached sidewalk with back of walk located at property line:: The resulting strip between the detached sidewalk and curb shall be landscaped, including street trees street trees to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Directors. 2. 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. 3. Access rights along Broad Street, except at approved driveway locations shown on the tentative map, shall be dedicated to the City. 4. The developer shall design medians per the Broad Street corridor plan to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 5. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the Sacramento Drive and Broad Street frontages. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. a. It�� Attachment 9 City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 9 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the Sacramento Drive and Broad Street frontages. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 7. 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. 8. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, lumenaires, etc.) per City standards, including street lighting along Broad Street and Sacramento Drive. 9. The subdivider shall construct a bus turn-out, transit shelter, 'Punch" post sign and trash receptacle, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The Water,Sewer & Utilities 1. The proposed on site sewer.•main will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 1. The rate of runoff from the site post development shall not exceed that of predevelopment for the 2, 10, 100 year and 24hour storm. Analysis and design of stormwater facilities Attachment 9 : City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 10 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 shall be consistent with the City's Waterways Management Plan - Drainage Design Manual. 2. In order to mitigate for a decrease in water quality, the stormwater runoff from all improved areas of the development site, except rooftops, shall be treated in accordance with the Best Management Practices published in the California Stormwater Quality Association's Best Management Practice Handbook, January 2003. For the purposes of water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a 25 mm/24-Hour storm event. 3. The CCRs for the project shall require that the homeowners association submit, to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, a detailed report prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer addressing the condition of all private stormwater facilities and anynecessary maintenanceactivities on a semi-anridal basis (April 30 and October l of . . each year). The CCRs for the project shall also include detailed procedures for maintenance and operations of any storm water facilities. 4. A final hydrology report.,indicating how the project .meets the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan and other applicable City standards shall be submitted prior to map recordation. The scope of the report must include analysis of all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of disposal. 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 report to be subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be constructed to conform with the City's flood damage prevention regulations and.the City's Waterways Management Plan. The preliminary report has been submitted and accepted by the Public Works Department. 5. 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. 6. 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 California Deptartment of Fish & Game. 7. 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. 8. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation a. , I Attachment 9 City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 11 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 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. The WDID # from the State Water Resources Control Board shall be included on all plans submitted to the City involving ground disturbing activities. Mapping Requirements 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. J�r'1U� Attachment 9 City Council Resolution No. (2004 Series) Page 12 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 Utilities Code Requirements 1. 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 based on a per unit basis for the residential buildings, and the size of the water meter(s) for the non-residential components of the development. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Credit is given for existing accounts on the property. 2. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. The continued use of anywell will be allowed only on the parcel containing the well. 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. - 3. Non-residential uses require a separate connection to the public water system, for automatic fire sprinklers. The fire service lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to.the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than:25 feet from the right-of-way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer.. If the fire service supports one or more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with •manufacturer's•= recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. 4. 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. Utilities Conditions 1. The development of the site triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that any existing sewer lateral to the property must be abandoned at the main as a condition of development, unless the lateral is intended for use with the proposed development and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for this purpose, the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for approval. City Council Resolution No. . (2004 Series) Page 13 3592 Broad Street, U/TR/ER 24-03 2. 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, including proper separation from potable water facilities and sanitary sewer facilities. 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 passed and adopted this day of , 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Diane Reynolds, Acting City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona well, City Attorney Attachment 9 Exhibit A — Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Programs 1. Mitigation —Air Quality Construction Phase Mitigation Measures: a. All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed.. b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. c. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. d. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. e. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. f. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. g. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. - • Monitoring Program: Construction phase air quality mitigation measures are monitored by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), through a complaint based enforcement system. The requirements listed above are noted on the project plans and the City Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector for the project are instructed to contact APCD in the event of a probably violation. Members of the public can also call APCD if they are concerned about dust or other emissions from a construction site. Attachment 9 Resol. ..►n No. Exhibit B 2. Mitigation—Aii Ouality a. For residential units, provide all of the following: L Increase the building energy efficiency rating by 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements. This can be accomplished in a number of ways (increasing attic, wall or floor insulation, etc.); ii. Provide secure on-site bicycle parking for multi-family residential developments; and iii. Build new homes with internal wiring/cabling that allows telecommuting, teleconferencing, and tele-learning to occur simultaneously in at least 3 locations in each home. b. For retail/office uses, provide all of the following: i. Increase the building energy efficiency rating by 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements. This can be accomplished in a number of ways (increasing attic, wall or floor insulation, etc.). ii. Provide on-site bicycle parking. One bicycle parking space for every 10 car parking spaces is considered appropriate; iii. Provide on-site eating, refrigeration and food vending facilities to reduce lunchtime trips. iv. Provide preferential carpool and vanpool parking; and, v. Provide shower and locker facilities to encourage employees to bike and/or walk to work, typically one shower and three lockers for every 25 employees. vi. As indicated on page 11-8 of the project description, implement a Transportation Choices Program. The applicant should work with the Transportation Choices Coalition partners for free consulting services on how to start and maintain a program. Contact SLO Regional Rideshare at 541-2277. vii.Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. viii.Use high efficiency, gas or solar water heaters. ix. Use built-in energy efficient appliances. x. Use double-paned windows. • Monitoring Program: These items are monitored through Architectural Review, where many of these items are listed as conditions of approval. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department also will review plans submitted with a building permit application to insure that the requirements listed above are noted where appropriate. Final monitoring of these requirements comes during the final inspection of the project, prior to occupancy. On- going monitoring can be implemented during reviews of the Use Permit for the project, or during reviews of subsequent use permit applications. Broad Street Mixed Use (ER 24-03) 2 of 6 Attachment 9 -� Resol%-__on No. Exhibit B 3. Mitigation—Air.Ouality The project site is located in a Naturally Occurring Asbestos candidate area. 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 state 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 requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. These requirements may include but are not limited to 1) an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan which must be approved by the District before construction begins, and 2) an Asbestos Health and Safety Program will also be required for some projects, to the approval of the APCD. The APCD monitors State air quality requirements and. will be routed plans that are submitted for building permits for the project to insure compliance with all standards and requirements. APCD also responds in the field during construction on a complaint basis. • Monitoring Program: Building permits for the project will not be issued until the APCD has "signed-off' on the applicant's Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program. 4. Mitigation—Biological Resources An exclusion fence delineating the required 20-foot setback shall be installed along each bank of the creek prior to construction. A qualified biological monitor shall be present during all construction or landscaping activities scheduled to take place within. the barrier, to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager. • Monitoring Program: The Planning Division of the Community Development Department will review plans submitted with a building permit and require his mitigation measure to be clearly printed on all plan sheets that show any portion of the creek. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector will also monitor this requirement during daily inspections of the project site. 5. Mitigation—Biological Resources Erosion control measures shall be used to ensure that no sedimentation of the stream channel occurs as a result of construction activities. Broad Street Mixed Use (ER 24-03) 3 of 6 Attachment 9 Resol,—on No. Exhibit B • Monitoring Program; The Planning Division of the Community Development Department will review plans submitted with a building permit and require his mitigation measure to be clearly printed on all plan sheets that show any portion of the creek. The Public Works Department will review all grading plans to insure implementation of BMPS's for soil erosion. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector will monitor these requirements during daily inspections of the project site. 6. Mitigation—Biological Resources Landscaping along the creek channel shall include the planting of native riparian trees such as sycamores and cottonwoods. These trees shall be maintained so that they eventually produce a canopy that will shade sections of the stream channel that are currently choked with cattails. This measure is intended to inhibit cattail growth and create more open water areas, which would improve habitat for southwestern pond turtles. • Monitoring Program: The final restoration landscaping plan for the creek will be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager who will also make a final inspection of the project to insure that the landscaping has been installed per plan, prior to project occupancy. 7. Mitigation—Biological Resources Invasive plant species within the riparian corridor shall be removed from the site and disposed of in a proper manner. • Monitoring Program: The final restoration landscaping plan for the creek will be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager who will also make a final inspection of the project to insure that the landscaping has been installed per plan, prior to project occupancy. 8. Mitigation__Biological Resources The Architectural Review Commission shall review the design and location of all fencing proposed adjacent to the creek to insure consistency with the Creek Setback Ordinance and the Community Design Guidelines. • Monitoring Program: The applicant will be required to prepare a detailed fencing plan prior to final ARC review of the project. The ARC will be asked to review the design and location of the Broad Street Mixed Use (ER 24-03) 4 of 6 Attachment 9 Resol,_.on No. Exhibit B fence, consistent with any other mitigation measures or conditions of approval required by the City Council. 9. Mitigation—Hazards (Airport) Construction of more than 61 residential units on the project site is subject to City approval of an Administrative Use Permit. The purpose of the use permit will be to evaluate consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. The use permit will be referred to the ALUC, unless prior changes to the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance that are approved by the ALUC make such a referral unnecessary. • Monitoring Program: Prior to issuance of building permits for more than 61 residential units on the project site, the City must approve an Administrative Use Permit. The Use Permit is needed to insure consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. The Use Permit will be forwarded to the Airport Land Use Commission for a consistency determination prior to issuance of any building permit that would allow construction of more than 61 units. 10.. Mitigation—Hazards (Airport) The applicant shall be required to submit proof that a real estate disclosure form and an avigation easement have been recorded, or are in the process of being recorded, prior to building permit issuance for any development on the project site. • Monitoring Program: These documents will be reviewed by the Planning Division of the Community Development Department before permits are issued for construction. 11. Mitigation=Noise The following construction methods shall be employed to achieve a Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of 20 dB for transportation related noise sources: a. Air conditioning or mechanical ventilation systems shall be provided as recommended by the noise study so that doors and windows can be kept fully closed during noisy times. b. The project shall be constructed with windows and sliding glass doors that have low air leak rate frames (less than .5 cfm per foot of crack length,per standard test). c. All exterior doors shall be of solid-core construction, with full perimeter weather stipping and threshold seals. • Monitoring Program: These requirements are routinely monitored by the Building Division of the Community Development Department during their review of plans submitted with a building permit application. Broad Street Mixed Use (ER 24-03) 5 of 6 Attachment 9 - Resoles__in No. Exhibit B 12. Mitigation—Noise A 17 dB noise level reduction is required to mitigate the noise level created by the fan at Level 3. This level of noise reduction can be achieved if the existing iron security fence that surrounds the exterior generators is modified to become a noise barrier on the south and east sides. The applicant shall replace these portions of the existing fence with a sound barrier wall of masonry construction and height of about 18 to 20 feet. • Monitoring Program: The requirement is monitored by Architectural Review of the wall design and a detailed review of building plans to insure consistency with the noise reduction requirements. The mitigation measure will be made a condition of project approval and the wall will have to be completely installed before occupancy of the project is permitted. 13. Mitigation—Noise Because of the proximity between the UPS facility parking lot and the nearest proposed residences, a continuous sound barrier along the sites common property line with the UPS property is required to achieve the required 10 dB of noise reduction. The design of the . noise barrier shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review. Commission prior to action on this Initial Study, to insure that the proposed wall can be implemented in a manner consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines. • Monitoring Program: The requirement is monitored by Architectural Review of the wall design and a detailed review of building plans to insure consistency with the noise reduction requirements. The mitigation measure will be made a condition of project approval and the wall will have to be completely installed before occupancy of the project is permitted. Broad Street Mixed Use (ER 24-03) 6 of 6 Attachment 9 Exhibit B-USES ALLOWED(Broad Street Mixed-Use Project) Permit iaequirement .. Permit Requirement Specific use ns Lana use _...... c ,' Pro ect Reg...... - AGRICULTURE Crop production and grazing. �p - INDUSTRY,MANUFACTURING&PROCESSING,WHOLESALING Furniture and fixtures manufacturing,cabinet shop D Industrial research and development PC PC Laboratory-Medical,analytical,.research,testing A A Laundry,dry cleaning plant A - Manufacturing-Light D PC Photo and film processing tab A A Printing and publishing A A Recycling facilities-Small collection facility D D Storage yard D - Warehousing,indoorstorage A A Wholesaling and distribution A D - LODGING Homeless shelter PC PC RECREATION,EDUCATION,&PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES Bar/tavern D D Club,lodge,private meeting hall D D Fitness/health facility A D Night club D D Chapter 17.95 Public assembly facility PC PC Religious facility Dm D(7) School-Specialized educatioa training A A Special event .. D D .,.. 17.08.010 Sports and active recreation facility PC PC Studio-Art,dance,martial arts,music,etc. A A Theater-Drive-in PC - RESIDENTIAL USES Caretaker quarters A A Home occupation H H 17.08.090 Live/work units A A 17.08.120 Mixed-use project PC A 17.08.072 Work/live units A A RETAIL SALES Auto and vehicle sales and rental A PC Auto parts sales,with installation A PC Auto parts sales,without installation A A Building and landscape materials sales,indoor A A Building and landscape materials sales,outoor A D Concurrent Sales of alcoholic beverages and motor fuel D Page 1 of 3 �� LP Attachment 9 Exhibit B- USES ALLOWED(Broad Street Mixed-Use Project) Permft Requirement..,.... Permit Requirement Specific use Land use _- . G5 Project Regulations Construction and heavy equipmentsales and rental D Convenience store D A - 17.08.095 Extended hour retail D D Farm supply and feed store A A Fuel dealer(propane,etc) D Furniture,furnishings,and appliance stores A A Mobile home,RV,and boat sales A - Produce stand A D Restaurant JD A Service station(see also"vehicle services') - 17.08.030 Warehouse stores-45,000 sf or less gfa D Warehouse stores-more than 45,000 sf gfa - SERVICES-BUSINESS,FINANCIAL&PROFESSIONAL ATMs _ A A Banks and financial services D(4) A Business support services A A Medical service-Clinic,laboratory,urgent care - D(12)- A Medical service-Doctor office - D(12)' A Office-Accessory A A Office-Processing D(4) A Office.-Production and administrative D(4) A Photographer,photographic studio A A SERVICES-GENERAL Catering service A A Cemetery,mausoleum,columbanum PC Copying and Quick Printer Service A A Day care-Day care center D(9) - 17.08.100 Equipment rental A D Food bank/packaged food distribution center D D Homeless shelter PC PC 17.01.110 Maintenance service,client site services A A Mortuary,funeral home D Personal services A A Personal services-Restricted D D Public utility facilities A A 17.08.080 Repair service•Equipment,large appliances, etc. A A Vehicle services-Repair and maintenance- Major A - Vehicle services-Repair and maintenance- Minor A - Vehicie services-Carwash D - Veterinary clinic/hospital,boarding,large animal D - Veterinary cliniethospital,boarding,small anima, indoor A A Page 2of3 I � r Attachment 9 Exhibit B-USES ALLOWED(Broad Street Mixed-Use Project) Permit Requirement Permit Requirement Specific use Land Use CS Project Regulations e ennary clinic/hosp`iM7Mar2mg,small anima, outdoor D TRANSPORTATION&COMMUNICATIONS Airport PC Ambulance,taxi,and/or limousine dispatch facility A Antennas and telecommunications facilities D D 17.16.120 Broadcast studio A A Heliport PC PC Parking facility D(6) - Parking facility-Multi-level PC(6) - Parkingfacility-Temporary D D 17.08.010 Railroad facilities D - Transit station or terminal D D Transit stop A A Truck or freight terminal A PC Any commercial use that operates between the hours of 6:00 PM and 8:00 AM shall require prior approval of an Administrative Use Permit Key: A=Allowed D=Director's Use Permit approval required PC=Planning Commission Use Permit approval required AID=Director's approval on ground floor,allowed an second floor or above H=Home Occupation Permit Note: Footnotes affecting specific land uses and Specific Use Regulations are found in the Zoning Regulations Medical services only permitted if approved by the Council for C-S zones Citywide Page 3 of 3 r O pyt � RED FILE COUNCIL YCDD DIR ME ING AGENDAC�°oIREDIR CHIEF DATE ITEM # ZATroRN2.r J,�,,�-Pw DIR L' July 27, 2004 p'CLUKORI® POLICE CHF D--ET HEA��DS 27' IEC DIR San Luis Obispo City Council members: (—1,-e5 lvl �"J_ IL nln --f== _ _- I ri ,li This is in regard to the mixed-use development proposed for 3592 Broad Street, public document 24-03 1 attended and spoke at a previous Planning Commission meeting regarding this project. I am astonished that this project is still being considered, for the following reasons. • As even one member of the Planning Commission noted, this seems to be a very odd location for a residential development. It is in the middle of a commercial/industrial zoned area. Basic common sense tells one that housing does not fit in this area. • This supposedly "mixed-use" development does not seem to be within the spirit of the city ordinances regarding mixed-use development, and may even be in total non-compliance with the law. I believe that the intent of mixed-use zoning is to intermix housing with light commercial use. This area is beyond light commercial use, and is in fact one of the most heavily industrialized areas in the city. For the city planning staff, to have not put the brakes on this project long ago makes me wonder about what personal stake some local government personnel might have in this project. There is a shortage of industrial space in the city. While there is also a shortage of affordable housing, new housing should not be built in industrial areas. There are other areas that are much more suitable for residential development, and that also are not suitable for commercial use. I am absolutely certain that the city would not allow an industrial development in the middle of a residential neighborhood. The City Council should show the business owners of this area the same respect that is demanded by residents for their own neighborhoods. It is this lack of respect for what is right for a neighborhood that leads me to suspect that there might be collusion between the city staff and the developers. There is a long-standing pattern in this city of developers being given whatever concessions they ask for, regardless of which city laws might be broken. Everyone needs to remember that no developer has ever conceded anything out of love for their community. Every action by a developer is done out of sheer greed. If a developer concedes a point, it is only because they hope to trade it for something that they consider to be of even greater benefit to themselves. I urge the City Council to respect the wishes of the neighborhood businesses and stop this ill-conceived project immediately. RECEIVED AUG 0 2 2004 SLO CITY COUNCIL i i Sincerely, /n Chuck Schwynoch Owner of Maximum Motorsports 3430 Sacramento Dr., Unit D San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 544-8748 RED FILE RECEIVED M NG AGENDA � �� pUG u 3 2004 DATE ITEM # ! �- I would like to thank you for this opportunity to sli"3114ERK fellow citizens and share with my neighbors and friends in this town. We are faced here today with a precident setting decision that we will have to live with from hereafter. I know that all my burdensome input to this issue has been presented to you. If you made an effort to read my definitive analisis of the project and how it compares to the citys working documents of the way city decisions should be made and what has been stated as being important to the core of the cities principles, then you are aware of the concerns of the commercial district that I represent. I have been in contact with most of the businesses in the district and truthfully reflect the majority concerns. The guiding principles and goals of this town have seemingly been ignored. The zoning regulations are being twisted beyond reason for the benefit of the special interest who just want to make a quick profit at the expense of our town. When there are questions from the public no answers are offered and public input has been suppressed. This project is an imposition on the rest of its suroundings with no pretense of blending into the existing long estabulished uses. This project ignores many of the problems associated with this location and uses flawed science to justify this mistake. Many state and local laws have been broken and the Public Trust has suffered in the shameful city promotion of this issue. There is a higher use of this land available with its proximity to the Level 3 world wide internet access that could make an imense contribution to the financial health of the town instead of a leach on the city's precious resources. I have a vision of an internet village of smal�bu�s �zhap touch the world and DIR make a difference. LQ CAO �FIN DIR onald E. Hedrick,citizen � ACAO FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEYaPOLICECHF PW DIR O DEPT HEADS REC DIR T1� L5 UTIL DIR Richard Schmidt Ir 5444247 M07131/4 08:31 AM D 112 w` RECEIVED RICHARD SCHMIDT AUG 0 2 2004 K Co'U t!'112 Bea Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 /CAOFIN DIR fU,f CAO �FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY E5-PW DIR RED FILE July 30, 2004 CL ERK/ORIG effPOLICE CHF ME IN AGENDA FJ D��P�HEADS REC DIR To the City CoUK61?- J ,TUTIL DIR Re: Agenda Item 2: DATE c ITEM # "Broad Street Mixed Use Project' I urge you to reject this proposal to plunk an isolated island of housing in the middle of the cit�l's major industrial area. This site is inappropriate for housing. As the author of the city's mixed use ordinance, and one of the most enthusiastic boosters of its potential to provide large quantities of additional quality housing, I remain greatly offended at the bad uses to which it.has been put, and at the continuing failure to put it to the good city-initiated uses for which it was intended. The Broad Street Mixed Use Project is an abuse of the mixed use ordinance. The ordinance was intended to add housing to commercial uses where appropriate, meaning where a good quality of life can be assured residents, and housing does not interfere with commercial activities. This project flunks on both counts. This site is surrounded by uses that involve noise, night lighting, industrial fumes and chemicals, health-harming diesel trucks idling 24/7, etc. It is an industrial site and should be reserved for that use. The quality of life provided residents will, literally, stink. Having residences in the midst of industry sooner or later will force out businesses which have chosen this area in good faith, and invested in locating there. The project violates numerous policies and provisions of the General Plan, including, but not limited to, such provisions as the following: - LUE Community Goal 29: "Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern." This is not a neighborhood, it is an isolated island of housing with no prospect of the island's ever expanding to create or join a neighborhood. - LUE 2.2.6. "All residential development.should be integrated with existing neighborhoods." This enclave is an island unto itself. - LUE 2.2.12.H. "Barrier walls, isolating a project, are not desirable." The project is surrounded by a tall wall which totally isolates it, which is 180 degrees opposite to the city's housing subdivision policies against walled enclaves. • LUE 3.5.1 and 3.5.2, Services and Manufacturing Purpose and Appripriate Uses. Nothing in this narrative legitimizes this isolated subdivision in the middle of the industrial area. The project violates the city's zoning ordinance by negating its fundamental zoning purposes, including, but not limited to, such provisions as the following: Richard Schmidt V 5444247 M07/31/4 08:31 AM p2/2 i • Zoning code 17.46.010 and 17.48.010, Purpose and Application C-S and M zones. Neither of these zones' purposes mentions housing. The descriptions are clear that housing would not be appropriate. The project is a fraudulent use of the mixed use concept to produce a residential island, with just enough non-housing to claim mixed use, where housing is not permitted by city code. This is nothing more than spot zoning, and a violation of state law. • Zoning code 17.55.010, Purpose MU zone. The project does not promote a compact city (by impinging upon industrial uses, it will promote sprawl as industrial uses must move to new sites still further from the center of the city), and far from providing safety for residents, the project will menace the life, health, happiness, and safety of residents. • Zoning code 17.55.040 Mandatory Findings (for MU application). These findings cannot be made without a cynica Qard for the normal meaning oft lish language. The Council rejected the Bridge Street project for non-compatibility, even though the site at least adjoined other residential uses. That should be a precedent for saying No to this far more inappropriately-located housing project. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt