The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/16/2004, PH 5 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A NEW 20-UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT BUILDING AND TWO-STORY PARKIN council ' D� ►< «, j acEnaa RepoRt fH CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directop*us Prepared By: Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A NEW 20-UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT BUILDING AND TWO-STORY PARKING STRUCTURE, INCLUDING CREEK SETBACK EXCEPTIONS, AT 55 BROAD STREET. (PD-163-02) CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 13, 2004, introduce an Ordinance approving amendments to the previously adopted PD Ordinance to allow the addition of twenty new senior apartments and a new development plan with exceptions to the City's Creek Setback Ordinance, and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project: DISCUSSION Situation A Planned Development Zoning District (PD) was originally established at this site in order to allow a student housing project. In 1997 this PD was amended to allow the senior housing project that exists today. This application proposes amendments to the PD to allow a new twenty-unit apartment building and revised parking. A creek setback, exception has been requested to accommodate pedestrian pathways and a pedestrian bridge. The senior housing campus consists of three parcels located at the corner of Broad and Ramona Streets. The amendment to the PD requires action by the City Council since the project modifies the approved development plan and adds additional site density. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) performed a conceptual review of the improvements on November 17, 2003. The final design of the project will require additional review by the ARC if the Council approves the amendments to the PD. Planning-Commission Action On October 13, 2004, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council approve the PD amendment to allow the new 20-unit apartment structure and amended development plan with a new parking structure and exceptions to the creek setback requirements. The Planning Commission resolution, hearing minutes and staff report are attached (Attachments 3, 4 and 5). Proiect Description Proposed changes to the senior housing campus include a new 3-story, 20 unit senior apartment building (deed restricted age 62 or older). The new apartments will consist of one and two bedroom units and will be constructed where an open parking lot currently exists just west of the Council Agenda Report-PD 163-02 November 16,2004 Page 2 existing 127-unit senior apartment complex at 55 Broad. A new parking deck is proposed over an existing parking lot on the west side of the creek at Palomar Avenue in order to supply the necessary replacement parking and accommodate the new apartments. The upper level parking deck would be constructed to meet the grade at Palomar where a new driveway would be established. The existing parking lot (lower level) would remain in its current configuration and continue to be accessed from Ramona Drive.. Evaluation A complete project evaluation is included in the attached Planning Commission (PC) staff report (Attachment 5). The report evaluates the project in terms of City's General Plan, compliance with property development standards, and consistency with the neighborhood and existing improvements. The key issues that should be considered by the City Council include site density, parking, and the requested creek setback exception. Although discussed in detail in the PC report these issues are summarized below. Residential Density The project complies with the density standards for the R-4 district for the type of housing that is being proposed. Calculating allowed density for this project is complicated since there are varied calculation methods based on the type of living units, the need to exclude the creek area from density calculations, and mandatory State density bonuses for senior housing projects. Density for group housing projects (such as the existing units at 55 Broad) are calculated in terns of persons per net acre, while the proposed project (as complete apartments with kitchens) would be calculated in terns of units, based on the number of bedrooms per acre. In either case, State Law requires that a density bonus be automatically granted for projects occupied exclusively by seniors. The minimum density bonus must be 25%, although greater density bonuses can be approved by the local agency. Density Summary ,Unit type Density Site area required in R4 With 25% bonus Group Housing(55 Broad) 155 persons maximum 2.8 Acres 2.1 acres Apartment units(proposed) 16.3 units .68 acres .51 acres 3.48 acres 2.52 acres Property size less creek area between top of banks =3.35 acres The R-4 district allows 55 persons per acre or 24 units per acre. As noted above, the maximum occupancy at 55 Broad has been approved at 155. Therefore, 155155 = 2.8 acres, which is the area of the site needed to accommodate the existing density for 55 Broad. Since the total site area is 3.35 acres, .55 acres remain available to add additional density. 20 new apartment units (11 one-bedroom and 9 two-bedroom units) are equal to 16.3 density units and therefore require .68 acres (before the density bonus is applied). The density table illustrates that even with Council Agenda Report—PD 163-02 November 16,2004 Page 3 exclusion of the creek, the proposed project density conforms to City standards with the minimum density bonus. Parking The project complies with the City's parking requirements. Housing occupied exclusively by persons aged 62 or older may provide one-half space per dwelling unit or one space per four occupants in "group quarters" situations. Guest parking is required at one space per five units for apartment units. Group housing projects (since they do not contain complete units with kitchens) do not require guest parking since it is assumed that the total number of spaces will accommodate occupants, staff, and.guests. The applicant has provided a parking calculation on page 2 of the plans. Additionally, the applicant has surveyed the site to evaluate the average parking vacancy rate during daytime hours. The average use of all available parking spaces was determined to be only 51%. The three parcels at this site rely on a common parking area that is designed to serve the various types of senior apartments and facilities that occupy this planned development. Required Parking 20 new senior apartments= 14 parking spaces Existing 55 Broad Street, 127 unit apartment= 88 parking spaces Existing 61 Broad Street,50 apartment units= 35 parking spaces Existing 73 Broad Street,64 bed group quarters= 16 parking spaces Total required parking spaces= 153 spaces The campus currently has 186 vehicle spaces. 104 of those spaces would be removed with the proposed development project but 75 new parking places would be constructed (net reduction of 27 spaces). Although the number of parking spaces is being reduced with the addition of the new structure, the ratio still complies with the regulations for senior housing while still supplying additional recommended visitor parking spaces. Residents of the existing senior housing at 55 Broad Street (comer of Broad and Ramona) are concerned that the removal of the parking spaces to the east of the building will increase the walking distance for tenants and visitors. At the Planning Commission (PC) hearing, the residents asked if twelve of the new parking spaces to be constructed below the new apartments could be dedicated to the existing units at 55 Broad Street and that the proposed parking structure be identified as the parking for the new apartments. Instead, the PC agreed with the applicant that the operators of the senior housing campus would best manage the parking rather than specify a specific parking allocation within the Planned Development. It is important to note that while some of the parking to the east of the existing units will be removed to construct the new apartments, 43 parking spaces will still surround the existing senior housing units at 55 Broad Street. Creek Setback Exception The proposed new building and parking structure comply with the City's creek setback ordinance by maintaining a 20-foot setback from the top of the creek bank. The improvements to the site enhance the existing relationship of the creek to the built environment. The existing parking lot S-3 Council Agenda Report—PD 163-02 November 16,2004 Page 4 is built to the edge of the creek bank, well within the restricted 20-foot setback area. The proposed project will remove the non-conforming parking area within the setback replacing it with landscaping and pedestrian pathways. However, because the pathways and the proposed new pedestrian bridge are within the 20-foot creek setback area, they do require approval of a discretionary exception. Pedestrian and vehicular bridges already span the creek at this location. The Natural Resources Manager has reviewed the conceptual plans and believes that the exception to allow pathways is justified with the requirement to preserve the creek bank in a natural state and enhance the area with native landscaping.. A mitigation measure also requires that the new pathways may .not encroach further into the creek setback than the existing asphalt parking lot in its current configuration. The Draft ordinance for the PD amendment contains findings for approval of a creek setback exception. Environmental Review Staff has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. The initial study resulted in the recommendation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff identified potential environmental impacts from the project in the issue areas of biological resources, noise, air quality and drainage/hydrology. Some of the known potential impacts to the site will be automatically mitigated by compliance with required building code provisions that will be incorporated in the plan check process. For other issues, specific mitigation measures are recommended. Conclusion The PD amendment would allow a new 20 unit senior apartment building to be developed on an infill location which is appropriately close to retail uses and medical services. The project complies with property development standards, including parking and density for the R-4 district. With its conceptual review, the ARC indicated its general support for the parking layouts and pedestrian access. The ARC will be responsible for reviewing the final building elevations and site design including landscaping and site amenities following review of the PD amendment by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Amending the Planned Development for this location is consistent with the intent of the general plan and will not significantly alter revenues since the project is an infill site already surrounded by residential development. ALTERNATIVES 1. Take no action, thereby leaving the current PD zoning in place. S� � Council Agenda Report—PD 163-02 November 16,2004 Page 5 2. Continue action, if additional information is needed, direction should be given to staff. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale project drawings 3. Planning Commission Resolution 5409-04 4. Planning Commission meeting minutes, October 13, 2004 5. Planning Commission staff report 6. Initial Study of Environmental Impact 7. Draft Ordinance amending Planned Development G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\PD 163-02 55 Broad\PD 163-02 CCrpt(11-16-04).doc '�Re? ml �■ '� ::■ ::�• r ..■ 1■■i�t . X111 � R-4-PD MEN EEA�MMM 111111111■ 11111 ■■ ■ ■ -� 1 P' ■■■ ■ ••� ■1111111111 MEN �:rr,;c• ■� ■■■■� 111 111 IIIIIIILIII mom MOM— VICINI TY MAP 55 � 111111 � � � ► �. :►�� .111111: ♦ I ,� . �� X11 . _ Broad _..e nmel t i "imini nicwsoii•iia' n�w almm al aor w5 -IS--n�d Woft _ om is!�n!e aa. at e !1o"T8 te!rm�a Izhmli.av tiIllfiia , is if ;itt a� ii � �iiij b E 0 4 u I � i .lt1t�lf, ai Pill { ; SE ft ��li `d �'QQ Q i�9!1 �i! )fill �� a a f l3��It �' I tl(f" i' t#'t� will E.t iif�. ,t�11 �!€ !t r W tl l it t tt # a - Z a Fi�E2 1.1.0 7IEi oil 11 i ,11H m 71i > -- - 'moi t:i33ttsii ! CD t of 4i! _I II p n n S •.` Cis , E la°• e. •Is y m e m i 3 -- e' " W p d 8 1 : W c „.... ...1,22, amo;;Z*lx VEX =-�z z 9 Attthe it 2 Si7LL1971Y c +WIN�� - �."LT� aww°m is aumn wt ate w!s Tmm;mn±vwv 3$pl oil ja fit IF �! m L -J = A ! ! I a 1 Ic I Fo ! �� Igmo I 9a oa a FY ! I im> 6.al i {9 e W i ,t aii , !�e;4 5, 7i wow .. .... i I .i J LJ I e i f it t ISI � � , �,. ❑ a !SHIJ bj } / if ! 5 Bia:95919 if !� r � o I I I — a.•,:•j �' . \ r . . a �l�� s�o�, 3 ! [ r J• F P z F F 3 1 3 'MAY a a o Y Ya ! ! \ ++ •\ \v of \\ ! rn A \ 2 as ! I im nt 2 mazal•awOPIAI*(i•VEX... m'I�I.A a.O ��.�..�� SI7tIfH0iY p� * =+MEB ? simmPso"!Ws is wamnav - - RMFd aVi it ah11[d aVl _ 1!u9n x715 fi!1m8 o u 0 p �b � m m W p H D w. C7 W 0. V +-...rrorom O I m I I I e / lie W , WE LLLI � w z i� •� c �� EE V I w i / Y m ''a A V H V H 0 7 V d / _ U � o o a d a C p m d E 0 6 0 m m � m w x m m ami � a m J —�—. .......1:..1.... ...;;..1. _. ............... ......... i' __ cl m nt 2 iiaal"urowea:i iii' m��mo i fIatxlHa pWMv w n- a et �s��a ..ns, !�e s �a+std m s F - �fod a41 19 ahR!d a41 "ma 1e+mlx.d9 aaN 21 1 e £lIT 1E or e seal= I a a e a a a � A oil o a - o il a I � I I 9 o feast x � Y — m a C v7 e m F m a C O O y ' v y " A azaeel_ _ - rI _.._. ..._.. —_� ctmm nt 2 ,•iiini�erow not 9 waz � mryw..�a..o � ` SL2111831Y A ,l vw P.M u y QJ�+»dy+oNaS '19 evomq _ MRd am 11 2hWA MU Azu Mm 1"ofd 1m(1 0 n m i 6 + I Q q• U 6 Q N N Y +T F i a �.e m f Q c m � e a w 4 5 ,r r J•.: 'a7 i c i� II fill IOU Wim; ; Cp `�►' c Or t_ all �r v1�;7 y � n p 4 AfiayMeq .............. ....... wouni CHOMM21W Vwx r,13-1 IMES 171 II 4J 4 ............ ............... 4 ........ ....... ......- ..... ...... .... ....... ..... ..... ..... i .................. II �a ...., : _ ISI' I',Ili . .... ........ ... .... ... a, II6e CIO pa H A V V M 0 1 V d .......... .......... ...... ................. I o, 3 i } era�ar .a •�i A �y�� /L r .. Iprom� fr. •., � t�n,'��^' JLC .� r • ,I�,�ry`P " - _ rl \ i lt1 t t�TF:t c.r ur_c.t.'.i.¢:a�t.�:a:.ii'•t �� /' rj Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 5409-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW 20 ADDITIONAL SENIOR APARTMENT UNITS AND A CREEK SETBACK EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 55 BROAD STREET PD 163-02 (Morrison, LLC) 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, ori October 13, 2004, for the purpose of considering application PD 163-02, a request to amend the Planned Development to allow 20 new senior apartments and a creek setback exception; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings in support of the project approval as a recommendation to City Council that includes amendment to the Planned Development to allow additional density (20 new apartment units) and a creek setback exception within the PD established for the three parcels at the southwest comer of Broad and Ramona Streets (55 Broad Street). General Findings 1. The proposed project (establishment of 20 senior apartments) is consistent with the General Plan, and with approval of the Planned Development Amendment, the proposed land use is allowed within the applicable primary R-4 zoning district since high-density housing is intended to be located within this district. 2. Except for the requested creek setback exceptions, the project complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations as described within the property development standards for the High-Density Residential district. Lo Attachment 3 3. All affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. 4. The location, size, site planning and operating characteristics of the project are highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood, and will be compatible with the character of the site, and the land uses and development intended for the surrounding neighborhood by the General Plan. 5. The site is suitable for the project in terms of size, configuration, topography,.adequate parking and other applicable features, and has appropriate access to public streets with adequate capacity to accommodate the quantity and type of traffic expected to be generated by the use. 6. As conditioned, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project will not, in the circumstances of-the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. Creek Setback Findings 7. The location and design of the pathways and narrow pedestrian bridge requiring the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. 8. The exception will not limit the city's design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies. 9. The exception will not prevent the implementation of city-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans.. 10. There are circumstances applying to the,site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning because the site is irregularly-shaped and has an extensive amount of lineal creek frontage. 11. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege —an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning because properties have significantly greater encroachments into the required creek setback and the project will remove existing pavement which encroaches into the setback. 12. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream; and 13. Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project; and Attachment 3 14. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property because the current design actually appreciably enhances the health and extent of the riparian corridor by the removal of existing asphalt paving located in the creek setback area, removal of invasive plant materials, and new planting of riparian plant materials to augment existing desirable vegetation. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. 1. Aesthetics: All new exterior light sources shall be designed with full cutoff fixtures that conceal the light source. If new street lighting or other public spacb lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare shall be required, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Monitoring Program: A lighting photometric plan shall be submitted for,review and approval by the Community Development Department as part of the construction plan check. An examination of installed . lighting will be analyzed prior to occupancy of the site. 2. Air Quality: The following dust mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution impacts associated with grading and construction of the site. They are required from the start, and are to be maintained throughout the duration of.the construction or grading activity: a) Unless otherwise approved, an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District for review and approval prior to the start of any construction or grading activity. The plan, if required shall be implemented during all phases of earthwork at the site. b) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; c) Prior to any ground disturbance; sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; e) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; f) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and g) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a NEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four (24) hours. Monitoring Program: An asbestos dust mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Air Quality District prior to issuance of a construction permit. City staff shall ensure compliance with standards through site inspections. Biological Resources: 3. All construction activities including grading, vegetation removal, stockpiling, equipment storage etc. shall remain outside of the creek bank, creek channel and 20-foot creek setback at all times unless specific exceptions are approved by the City's Natural Resource Manager, G` Yi C Attachment 3 the Department of Fish and Game, and clearly identified on the approved project plans. The creek setback line shall be established by the City's Natural Resource.Manager and shall be clearly marked in the field. 4. Prior to removal of the asphalt and prior to any grading or construction on site, the top of the creek bank shall be fenced with appropriate silt fencing and all vegetation shall be protected with orange snow fencing. The fencing shall remain in place and maintained as necessary throughout the entire duration of the construction project. Hay bales and waddles will be required at the edge of the creek bank to prevent construction debris from entering the creek channel during a storm event. 5. No trees or existing vegetation within the vicinity of the creek shall be trimmed, removed or otherwise interfered with without prior to approval of the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director. 6. Construction of the bridge and associated improvements crossing the creek shall require permits from the Department of Fish and Game unless otherwise exempted from such review. 7. No improvements such as concreted pathways off,other similar new construction shall be allowed to encroach closer than the edge of existing improvements (asphalt parking lot) on site. 8. Approval of pathway construction within the creek setback shall be subject to approval of a creek setback exception by the City Council and shall require a plan that identifies the removal of non-native shrubs and groundcover within the creek bank. 9. A creek restoration plan, that includes native landscaping, shall be approved by the City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director. Following construction, prior to occupancy of the building, the creek bank and setback area shall be planted with native shrubs, groundcover and/or tree species to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager consistent with the approved plan. Monitoring Program: Prior to release of City construction permits, the riparian areas shall be inspected,for fencing and erosion control protection. A separate permit shall be secured by the Department of Fish and Game and other applicable agencies prior to issuance of a City construction permit that allows work within or over the creek area including the creek bank area. Cultural Resources: 10. A phase one archaeological study shall be performed upon removal of the parking lot paving. The project shall incorporate the recommendations of the study or perform additional monitoring as required y the report. 11. During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural, historic or paleontological material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologistlhistorian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. Monitoring Program: Ongoing field inspections by City staff and construction staff awareness shall ensure compliance with the mitigation measures. The project shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Demolition Ordinance for the Attachment 3 demolition or relocation of the existing residence upon submittal of construction permit applications. Hydrology and Water Quality: 12. All site drainage shall be directed towards the public right of way or on site private drainage systems unless other provisions are approved by the City. . 13. Where feasible, driveways, parking areas or private streets shall be constructed of pervious materials such as turf block to enhance on-site water percolation. 14. Where a lack of native tree cover and vegetation allows for creek bank planting, White Alder trees shall be planted ten feet on center with the intention of shading the creek bed and bank. The Natural Resources Manager shall approve the final planting plan. Monitoring Program: ' Construction plans, including a grading and drainage plan, shall reflect direction of drainage and identify any proposed detention or retention. Pervious paving materials (where used)shall be shown on the construction plans. Drainage systems and applicable installations shall be incorporated.into the site prior to final inspection. Noise 15. Unless already incorporated, existing west facing windows at apartments facing 55 Broad Street and existing windows at 61 Broad Street facing north and west within the project vicinity shall be dual glazed windows rated for maximum noise suppression. Existing vents and openings shall be fitted with noise reducing baffles or other measures in order to reduce exposure to temporary construction noise. 16. Construction schedule shall strictly adhere to City Noise standards. No construction activities shall be allowed prior to 8 am or after 7 pm and no noise producing construction activities shall be allowed on weekends unless the City Building Official, following notification of affected tenants, approves specific exceptions. Monitoring Program: Construction hours and noise standards shall be clearly listed on the construction drawings. Insulated windows and other mitigation as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department shall be incorporated into existing apartment units prior to commencement of construction. Transportation/Traffic 17. A construction phasing plan that ensures uninterrupted site access and an adequate supply of off-street parking shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a construction permit. The phasing plan should require the construction of the parking structure and an accessible pedestrian bridge crossing prior to demolition of the existing site parking on the east side of the creek. As an,alternative, a temporary off-site parking plan with a shuttle to serve tenants, visitors and employees may be utilized. 18. Construction vehicles, construction employees shall park off street on the project site during construction. Monitoring Program: A construction phasing plan and interim parking and access plan shall be submitted for review and approval as part of the building permit application package. Attachment 3 Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application PD 163`-02, subject to the following conditions and code requirements. 1. Within 6 months of City Council approval (following approval by the Architectural Review Commission) the applicant shall prepare and submit a final amended development plan to the Community Development Director consistent with Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.62.060. 2. An affordable housing agreement (per the City's Inclusionary Housing Requiremnts) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to proceeding to the Architectural Review Commission, following approval of the applicable entitlements by the City Council. 3. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the project design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines following approval of the planned development amendment by the City Council. 4. The PD amendment allows for the establishment of 20 new apartments units with a maximum dwelling unit density count of 16 units. 5. Parking for employees of any of the senior housing uses within the PD shall utilize the upper deck of the parking lot accessed from Palomar Street. Appropriate signs and employee regulations shall be established prior to occupancy of the new units. 6. The parking structure and. associated improvements shall be constructed prior to eliminating existing parking spaces and constructing the new apartment units in order to ensure continuation of adequate on-site parking. On motion by Commissioner Loh, seconded by Commissioner Miller and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Loh, Miller, Caruso, Osborne, Boswell, Christianson NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioner Aiken The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 13th day of October, 2004. 511N onal hisenand ecretary Planning Commission iS;' Attach-dent 4 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 13, 2004 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 12, 2004, in .the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL-CALL:. Present: Commrs. Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Michael Boswell, Alice Loh, Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson James Caruso Absent: Commr. Jim Aiken Staff: Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore, Natural Resource Manager Neil Havlik, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Community Development. Director Michael Draze, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Minutes of September 22, 2004, were accepted as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, commented on local City government. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 55 Broad Street. PD and ER 163-02; Request to modify an existing Planned Development zoning district to accommodate 20 senior residential units, and environmental review; R-4-pd zone; Morrison, LLC, applicant. Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending that the City Council approve the PD amendment and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Hamish Marshall, Morrison 1 LLC, gave an overview of the proposed project and gave an explanation of the parking. Planning Commission Minu, I Attachment 4 October 13, 2004 Page 2 Lauren Luker, R2L Architects, described the architecture of the project and noted they are requesting a creek setback exception. Jack Widder, Operations, explained the operation for the project and gave a brief overview of the parking. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, SLO, expressed concern with the number of students and noted the senior citizens need to be protected. Louise Palmer, a Palm resident; read a letter written by her husband Pierre Palmer expressing concerns with the locations of the parking spaces on the far side of the creek, and noting that the walk to the parking is difficult. She pointed out that 70 residents drive and that 50 residents have cars. Chuck Crotser, neighbor to this village, noted that he walks this path regularly and that the parking lot is frequently empty. He expressed support for the project. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commission discussion focused on the parking layout. Commr. Loh moved to adopt the resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Development Amendment to allow 20 additional senior apartment units and exceptions to the creek setback ordinance to allow pedestrian pathways and a Pedestrian bridge over the creek and a mitigated negative declaration. Seconded by Commr. Miller. AYES: Commrs. Loh, Miller, Osborne, Boswell, Christianson, and Caruso NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Aiken ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. 2. 3440 South Hiauera Street. GPC 170-04; General Plan conformity report for a one-acre land dedication to the City of San Luis Obispo; C-C-S zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Natural Resource Manager Neil Havlik presented the staff report asking the Commission to determine and report to the City Council that the proposed property donation conforms with the General Plan. 33 Attachment 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1 00 BY: Philip Dunmore,Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: October 13, 2004 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner FILE NUMBER: PD 163-02 PROJECT ADDRESS: 55 Broad Street SUBJECT: Planned Development Amendment to allow a new 20-unit senior apartment building and two-story parking structure including creek setback exceptions, on a site with existing senior housing located on the comer of Broad and Ramona. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Planning Commission Resolution which recommends that the City Council approve the PD amendment and Mitigated Negative Declaration. BACKGROUND Situation This project, which includes the construction of a new 20-unit senior apartment complex and a two-story parking structure, involves an amendment to the property's Planned Development zoning to allow additional apartment units, increasing the overall density of the site. The new apartments would be located within the existing parking area off of Ramona, just east of Old Garden Creek, and a new parking structure would be constructed on the west side of the creek where a parking lot currently exists. A creek setback exception has been requested to accommodate pedestrian pathways and a pedestrian bridge. The subject property is one of three parcels of a senior housing campus at the corner of Broad and Ramona Streets. A Planned Development Zoning District (PD) was originally established at this site in order to allow a student housing project. In 1997 this PD was amended to allow the senior housing project that exists today. This application proposes amendments to allow additional site density, the new apartment building and revised parking. The amendment to the PD will require action by the City Council. The final design of the site improvements and new apartment building will require review by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The ARC performed a conceptual review of the improvements on November 17, 2003. Data Summary Address: 55 Broad Street ApplicanVProperty Owner: Morrisson 1 LLC Representative: R2L Architects_ Attachment 5 PD 163-02 55 Broad Page 2 Zonings R4-PD (High-Density Residential Planned Development) General Plan: High-Density Residential Environmental Status: Staff has prepared an Initial Study evaluating the project's potential environmental impacts in compliance with CEQA. The Commission should review and consider the environmental document, Attachment 3, which will require final action by the City Council. Site Description The project site is a three-parcel PD within the R-4 district with three separate residential apartment complexes designed for senior housing. A creek; known as Old Garden Creek, runs from north to south through the development. Ramona Drive and Foothill Plaza borders the north side of the project site and Palomar Avenue borders the west side of the property. Existing senior apartments at 55 Broad Street are located east of the project site.. Proiect Description The project consists of a new 3-story, 20 unit senior apartment building(deed restricted age 62 or older). The new apartments will consist of one and two bedroom units and will be constructed where an open parking lot currently exists just west of the existing 127-unit senior apartment complex at 55 Broad. A new parking deck is proposed over an existing parking lot on the west side of the creek at Palomar Avenue in order to supply the necessary replacement parking and accommodate the new apartments. The new parking deck would be constructed to meet the grade at Palomar and a new driveway would be established to allow access to the upper level parking deck from Palomar. The existing parking lot would remain in its current configuration and continue to be accessed from Ramona Drive. No existing units are planned to be demolished or remodeled as part of this project. EVALUATION The Planning Commission should base the review of this infill project on General Plan Policy, compliance with property development standards, and consistency with the neighborhood and existing improvements. The following paragraphs evaluate the project with respect to General Plan Policy and Zoning Regulations standards. General Plan Consistency This site is located within an area designated for High Density Residential uses on the General Plan Land Use Map. The site is close to neighborhood shopping centers, public transportation and is an appropriate transition between lower density neighborhoods and commercial land uses. As discussed in the General Plan Land Use Element, the description of the Land Use category is designed for such development: LU 2.4.7. Development should be primarily attached dwellings in two-or three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. Other uses which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such as i Attad ment 5 PD 163-02 55 Broad Page 3 ;zroun housingparks, schools, and churches, may be permitted. Such development is appropriate near employment centers and major public facilities. Staff response: The proposed development meets this basic definition of the land use designation in addition to implementing objectives that are outlined within the Housing Element. One such example of a Housing Element Policy is found in Housing Element Policy 8.2.1: HE 8.2.1 Encourage housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderlystudents, the homeless, or those seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy or co-housing accommodations, utilizing universal design.. Land Use Policy requires that development respect the creek and other natural site features. The proposed site development is directly adjacent to Old Garden Creek. Land Use Policy 2.28 and 2.211 discuss the interaction of development and creek habitat. LU 2.2.8.Natural Features Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and plants. LU 2.2.11: Site Constraints Residential developments shall respect site constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, native vegetation, and significant trees. Staff.response: This creek has been channelized and diverted in the past, however this project proposes to add native landscaping, pedestrian pathways and a new pedestrian bridge as a project amenity. The project is oriented towards the creek and the creek is incorporated as a natural site feature. The proposed project is within- a planned development that operates as a senior housing "campus" with shared parking, driveways and integrated pedestrian paths. This proposal is an infill project that places senior apartments directly adjacent to existing senior apartments and nearby commercial development. Land Use Policy 2.2.10 speaks to compatible developments LU 2.2.10: Compatible Development Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should compatible with any nearby, lower density development. A) Architectural Character: New buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety. B)Privacy and Solar Access: New buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where. multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings. Staff Response: The proposed scale and character of the proposed apartment structure complements existing structures within the senior housing complex. Some of the existing Attachment 5 PD 163-02 55 Broad Page 4 structures in this complex are older buildings that are kept up well, but reflect architectural themes that are not particularly in vogue today. The new design introduces a mission theme that meets contemporary architectural standards and will complement existing structures. The proposed location of the building will not impact surrounding neighborhoods in terms of solar access or overlook. Consistency with Zoning Regulations The proposed senior apartment complex is consistent with the High Density (R-4) zoning designation if the Planned Development is amended accordingly. The conceptual design plan (Attachment 2) complies with the Zoning Regulations Property Development Standards in terms of required density, yards, height, parking, and lot coverage. A final design plan would be reviewed by the ARC if the City Council approves the PD amendment to add the additional site density. The ARC would review the building design and site layout for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. The following discussion highlights applicable property development standards. Property Line Setbacks In the R-4 zone, the required street yard is 15 feet and other yards have a dimension of 5 to 15 feet depending on building height. The new building is proposed to be set back approximately 18 feet from the property line along Ramona Drive and therefore complies with the street yard requirement. The only other property line near the development is located parallel to the creek. The proposed new building is greater than 20 feet from this property line and therefore complies with all other yard requirements. Building height The height of the proposed building will be 35 feet, which is the maximum height allowed within the R-4 district. Creek Setbacks The Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.16.025 contains regulations that guide development adjacent to creeks. The proposed new building and parking structure comply with the City's creek setback ordinance by maintaining a 20-foot setback from the top of the creek bank. In general, the improvements to the site enhance the existing relationship of the creek to the built environment. The current site contains an asphalt parking lot that is relatively devoid of landscaping. This parking lot is built to the edge of the creek bank, well within the restricted 20- foot setback area. The proposed project will remove the parking area within the setback replacing it with landscaping and pedestrian pathways. However, because the pathways and the proposed new pedestrian bridge are within the 20-foot creek setback area, they would require approval of a discretionary exception. According to the Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.16.025 d, the following findings must be made in order to support a discretionary exception to the creek setback: Attachment 5 PD 163-02 55 Broad Page 5 Creek Setback Findings L The location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement, and ii. The exception will not limit the city's design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted cityflood policies; and iii. The exception will not prevent the implementation of city-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans; and iv. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning,and v. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege —an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; and vi. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream; and vii. Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project, and viii. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. ("Reasonable use of the property" in the case of new development may include less development than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional development on an already developed site, "reasonable development" may mean no additional development considering site constraints and the existing development's scale, design, or density.) In staff's opinion, the findings to allow new pathways and a pedestrian bridge can be made to support a creek setback exception. Adjacent properties within this Planned Development already contain parking areas, driveways and pathways directly adjacent to the top of the creek bank. The proposed new apartments enhance the relationship of the creek to the built environment and the project will result in the removal of a non-conforming parking lot. Pedestrian and vehicular bridges already span the creek at this location. The Natural Resources Manager has reviewed the conceptual plans and believes that the exception to allow pathways is justified with the requirement to preserve the creek bank in a natural state and enhance the area with native landscaping. A mitigation measure also requires that the new pathways may not encroach further into the creek setback than the existing asphalt parking lot in its current configuration. Parking During the development review process of previous senior housing establishments at this location, parking was one-of the more significant issues raised by the adjacent neighborhood. Street parking is limited on Broad Street, and single-family residential dwellings dominate Broad Street. Additionally, the association that currently manages the existing Palms senior apartments located at 61 Broad Street behind the proposed parking structure, objects to the new proposal because of parking and access concerns (see Attachment 4, letter). The new development-would . .. -.. Attachment 5 PD 163-02 55 Broad Page 6 be built on the existing parking lot, replacing the parking across the creek. Existing residents are concerned that the walking distance from the parking lot to the units it serves would be excessively increased. Additionally, residents outside the planned development have voiced concerns that the parking arrangement will encourage additional street parking on Broad Street. Consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, section 17.16.060-J, housing occupied exclusively by persons aged 62 or older may provide one-half space per dwelling unit or one space per four occupants of a group quarters. Additionally, staff believes that the units should be subject to additional guest parking requirements. The applicant has provided a parking calculation on page 2 of the plans. Additionally, the applicant has surveyed the site to evaluate the average parking vacancy rate during daytime hours. The average use of all available parking spaces was determined to be 51%. The three parcels at this site rely on a common parking area that is designed to serve the various types of senior apartments and facilities that occupy this planned development. Parkiniz.Summary 20 new senior apartments= 10 parking spaces Existing 127 unit apartment at 55 Broad (The Village) = 63 parking spaces Existing 61 Broad Street,50 apartment units (The Palms)= 25 parking spaces Existing 73 Broad Street, 64 bed group quarters (The Heritage)= 16 parking spaces Subtotal of required parking spaces = 114 spaces Guest parking is a required component of all multi family residential development with five or more units. Multi-family housing projects require guest parking at a ratio of 1 space for every five units. Group housing projects (since they do not contain complete units with kitchens) are not considered multi-family housing and therefore do not require guest parking. Since the existing and proposed senior projects contain a variety of unit types, some with and others without kitchens, the analysis below assumes the incorporation of multi family housing guest parking ratios for all units that contain kitchens. 20 new senior apartments (not assisted living) = 4 parking spaces Existing apartments at 55 Broad with 127 units= 25 parking spaces Existing 61 Broad Street,50 individual units= 10 parking spaces Existing 73 Broad Street (group housing)= N/A Total guest parking spaces according to Multi Family standards= 39 spaces Total parking requirement would be= 153 spaces 157 parking spaces are provided on the proposed plan. 104 spaces would be removed with the proposed development project and 75 new parking places would be constructed. Although I�f r Attachment 5 PD 163-02 55 Broad Page 7 the number of parking spaces is being reduced with the addition of the new structure, the ratio still complies with the regulations for senior housing while still supplying additional recommended visitor parking spaces. As evaluated below, the Planning Commission should discuss the pedestrian access and walking distance to the existing units and the parking structure. Parking Structure Unusual for a residential project, this project proposes a two-story parking deck in order to meet its parking requirements. The second deck of the parking will be at grade with Palomar Avenue and will therefore appear as a standard parking area from the surrounding neighborhood. The lower level of the parking deck will be oriented towards the creek and existing development at 55 Broad Street and will not be immediately visible off site. One access driveway will allow vehicles to enter the upper level of the parking lot from Palomar Avenue. Vehicles will continue to access the ground level parking lot from Ramona Drive. The exhibits on page 5 of the plans (Attachment 2) show how the elevation of the parking structure meets grade with Palomar Street. Although a parking structure in a residential district could potentially pose design concerns, this particular site appears to be suitable for a structure given difference in elevation between Palomar and the site, which helps to conceal the structure.. Pedestrian access from the parking lot to the apartment units is provided with two pedestrian bridges, one existing bridge and one new proposed bridge. The applicant has mentioned that the new bridge is optional and will only be built if permits can be obtained from the Department of Fish and Game without creating impacts to the creek. The existing bridge would be re- constructed in order to provide wheelchair accessibility. As previously mentioned, existing residents are concerned that the new parking arrangement will impede access to the existing residential units at 61 Broad. They maintain that the walking distance from parking to their units will be increased. As a condition of approval, staff suggests that all employees would be required to park on the upper parking deck, therefore reserving the lower level and closer parking areas for residents and visitors. Appropriate signs and employee regulations should be incorporated to ensure appropriate parking. Residential Density Calculating allowed density for this project, as well as prior projects on the adjacent senior "campus " sites, is complicated by several factors including-. ■ Varied calculation methods based on the type of living units; ■ The requirement to exclude the creek area from density calculations; and ■ Mandatory State density bonuses for exclusively senior housing projects. As was noted in the previous discussion on parking requirements, some projects on the campus have been evaluated based on group housing standards while others have been reviewed as multi- family apartments. Density for the group housing projects, such as 55 Broad on the same site, iY!/ V �.' Attachment 5 PD 163-02 55 Broad Page 8 are calculated in terms of persons per net acre, while the current project as complete apartments with kitchens would be calculated in terms of units, based on the number of bedrooms, per acre. In either case, State Law requires that a density bonus be automatically granted for projects occupied exclusively by seniors. The minimum density bonus must be 25%, although greater density bonuses can be approved by the local agency. To add an additional layer of complexityto the calculation, the area between the tops of the creek bank must be deleted in order to calculate density based on acreage. Density Information Property size less creek area between top of banks =3.35 acres Approved maximum occupancy at 55 Broad = 155 personstacre 20 New Apartments (11 one-bedroom and 9 two-bedroom units) = 16.3 dwelling units [(11 x .66) +(9x 1.0) =7.26+9= 16.26 or 16.3] The R4 district allows 55 persons per acre: As noted above,the maximum occupancy at 55 Broad has been approved at 155. Therefore, 155155 =2.8 acres,which is the area of the site needed to accommodate the approved density for 55 Broad. New Proiect Density Calculation Subtracting the 2.8 acres to accommodate the approved density for 55 Broad from the 3.35 total acreage results in 0.55 acres remaining. 0.55 acres x 24 unitstacre= 13.2 units Minimum 25% density bonus= 3.3 units Total Allowed Density= 16.5 units Proposed Density = 16.3 units This is a very conservative calculation since it does not factor allowed density bonuses for the 55 Broad calculations. However, it does illustrate that even with the constraint of the creek, the proposed project density conforms to City standards with the minimum density bonus. It is also a fair assessment that the site may be approaching its limits in terms of dwelling units and in general, overall development capacity. Grading,.Drainage and Utilities The proposed development would be constructed within a flood zone that is contiguous with the creek at these properties. A complete hydrology study has been prepared for the project and the study has been reviewed by the Public Works department for consistency with the City's flood ._. Attachment 5 PD 163-02 55 Broad Page 9 regulations. The creek at this location is prone to flowing over Ramona Drive at this location and into the parking lot east of the creek. This is due to a restricted culvert beneath Ramona Drive. As a solution to this problem, the project proposes a flood diversion wall that would be constructed between Ramona Drive and the proposed apartments. The wall would be approximately 3 feet in height and would be designed to allow floodwaters to be routed back into the creek instead of across the proposed development site. Since the development site is already a flat,paved parking area no significant grading would have to occur on order to develop the property other than removal of the asphalt and surface preparation of the building area.. All utility services such as electricity, phone and cable will be provided to the new units underground. A complete list of draft code requirements will be prepared for the project at the time it is reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, which will follow review and approval of the PD amendment by City Council. Environmental Review Staff has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. The initial study resulted in the recommendation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff identified potential environmental impacts from the project in the issue areas of biological resources, noise; air quality and drainage/hydrology. Some of the known potential impacts to the site will be automatically mitigated by compliance with required building code provisions that will be incorporated in the plan check process. For other issues, specific mitigation measures are recommended. CONCLUSION The PD amendment would allow a new 20 unit senior apartm_ ent building to be developed on an infill location which is appropriately close to retail uses and medical services. The project complies with property development standards, including parking and density for the R-4 district.. The Planning Commission should consider the potential impact to the existing senior apartment units and the surrounding neighborhood in terms of the location of parking and the pedestrian access. The location is appropriate for the additional density if the parking and pedestrian access plan can be designed logically. With its conceptual review, the ARC indicated it s general support for the parking layouts and pedestrian access. The ARC will be responsible for reviewing the final building elevations and site design including landscaping and site amenities following review of the PD amendment by the City Council. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed amendment, Attachment 5 PD 163-02 55 Broad Page 10 based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan as specified by the Planning Commission. The denial should be accompanied by a recommended course of action for changes that would allow consistency with the General Plan. 2. Continue review of the amendment with specific direction to the applicant and staff. Attached: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale drawings 3. Initial Study(ER 163-02) 4. Letters from existing residents and area neighbors 5. Resolution 8673, amending the PD to allow senior housing(PD 158-96) 6. Applicant provided parking survey 7. Resolution recommending approval of the amendment to the City Council G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\PD 163-02 55 Broad\PD 163-02 55 Broad PC tpt.doc 533 Attachment 6 ��N�IIIIII�hIIIIIIIIII �IlDllllllll ' ' \' - - Cl of SMMIS OBISPO Ift gab 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 IMTIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER# 163-02 1. Project Title: The Village at the Palms (PD/ER/ARC 163-02) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Philip Dunmore, Associate Planner (805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: 55 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Morrison LLC, 1880 Santa Barbara Street, Suite F SLO, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential 7. Zoning: High Density Residential (R-4) 8. Description of the Project: This project is a request to amend the property's Planned Development zoning to allow additional units, amending the overall density of the site and allowing the construction of a new 3-story, 20-unit senior apartment building (deed restricted age 62 or older) and a two story parking structure. The new apartments would be located within the existing parking area just east of Old Garden Creek and a new two-story parking structure to replace lost parking spaces would be constructed on top of the existing parking lot located west of the creek. A creek setback exception has been requested in order to allow pedestrian pathways and a footbridge. The subject property is one of three parcels of a senior housing campus at the comer of Broad and Ramona Streets. A Planned Development Zoning District (PD) was originally established at this site in order to allow a student housing project. In 1997 this PD was amended to allow the senior housing project that exists today. This application proposes amendments to allow additional site density, new construction and new parking within the senior apartment planned development. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is a three-parcel campus that contains three separate residential apartment complexes designed for senior housing. This project will include development on two of the �� 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. ,;.�,O/" I Attachment 6 three parcels, Parcel 1 and Parcel 3. Parcel 1 is a 3.54-acre parcel containing a 127-unit senior housing complex, site parking and associated improvements at 55 Broad Street. Parcel 3 is a 2.39-acre parcel containing a 50-unit senior apartment complex and a parking lot located at 61 Broad Street. Parcel 2 at 73 Broad contains a residential care facility. All parcels are within the High Density Residential district with a Planned Development overlay (R-4-PD). Property to the north is zoned Community Commercial (C-C) and is developed with a commercial shopping center. Property to the east and south on Broad Street is zoned low density residential (R-1) and is developed with single-family residences. Property to the west is zoned R-4 and contains multi family residential dwellings,predominantly in the form of student housing. The subject property is substantially developed and contains significant coverage due to parking and site development. A creek, known as Old Garden Creek bisects parcels 1 and 3 and runs from north to south through the properties. Ramona Street borders the north side of the project site and Palomar Avenue borders the west side of the property. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Amendment to the Planned. Development to allow additional residential density and design review of a new 20 unit apartment building and site improvements including 2 story parking. An exception to allow pedestrian pathways within the creek setback and a new pedestrian footbridge has been requested. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: California Department of Fish and Game �i CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 2 INITI/LL.STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2004 C 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. X Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials X Air Quality X Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation&Traffic X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems X Cultural Resources X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. X The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 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)). iii CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Attacht-nent 6 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on theenvironment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been X made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant' impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed_ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ign a Date Ronald whisenand Deputy Director,Community Development For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director CRY OF SAN LUts OBISPO 4 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 �rJ 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 a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis," maybe 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. Crry OF SAN Luys Ostspo 5 INmAL STUDY ENviRONmFNTAL CHECKusT 2004 Issues, Discussion and Support. ..dormation Sources sources Por i Potentially les MP; 6 The Village Senior Apartments PD/ER 163-02 Sig. At Significant significant impact ER# 163-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? _X__ b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited __X__ to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of __X__ the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would -X— adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation The project site is not located within a scenic vista and is located on a flat, paved site at the rear of an existing apartment building and adjacent to the rear of an existing commercial retail shopping center. The project development will not impede views from adjacent properties, however it will modify the view from existing apartments within the property,presently existing on this site. Since the proposed development will be located behind existing residential and commercial properties,there will be limited visibility to the site from public roadways. A seasonal creek and its associated vegetation that includes willow trees and native shrubs further screens the proposed project site from adjacent properties. No new substantial sources of light or glare are anticipated from the project since the proposal is a small-scale residential project with private improvements. Less than significant lighting impacts are anticipated since no substantial light sources are proposed with the project. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. 1.Mitigation Measure:Aesthetics a) All new exterior light sources shall be designed with full cutoff fixtures that conceal the light source. If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare shall be required, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of _X_ Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a _X_ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to --X-- their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? CUY OF SAN Luis Oatspo 6 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Issues, Discussion and Support.. _ ..dormation Sources Sourcm pof Y Potentiay LcAmw I I ,iiver+, ^D The Village Senior Apartments PD/ER 163-02 sig. .nt significant Significant impact ER# 163-02 Issues unless Impact Mitigation notated Evaluation The existing site and vicinity is not shown as prime farmland on California Resources Agency maps. The development site consists of a paved parking lot surrounded by high-density residential and commercial development. No impacts to existing on-site or off-site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site. Conclusion: No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an _X_ existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air _X_ quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant _X_ concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of —X-- people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria __X_ pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Impacts from the actual development, including but not limited to excavation and construction of the site, has the potential to create dust and vehicle emissions that may exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermittent periods unless mitigation measures are incorporated. The development site is directly adjacent to existing high-density senior housing. Unless mitigation measures regarding dust control and emissions from equipment are followed, the project's short-term construction impacts will result in potentially significant air quality impacts. Following completion of construction, the proposed project is anticipated to create less than significant impacts to air quality. Naturally Occurring Asbestos has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common in the City of San Luis Obispo and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure(ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, the applicant must comply with all applicable requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM,prior to any construction or grading activities at the site. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. 2.Mitigation Measures: Air Quality The following dust mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution impacts associated with grading and construction of the site. They are required from the start, and are to be maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: a) Unless otherwise approved, an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District for review and approval prior to the start of any construction or grading activity. The plan, if required shall be implemented during all phases of_earthwork at the site. b) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less; �i CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKuST 2004 s-Li 1) Issues, Discussion and Supporti, dormation Sources sources Poi j Potentially less 7Lan No The Village Senior Apartments PD/ER 163-02 sig.. M Significant Significant impact ER #163-02 Issues Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; e) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; f) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and g) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or _X_ through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or _X_ other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting _X_ biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident -ormigratorymigratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation _X_ Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected _X_ wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? The project proposes construction adjacent to a seasonal creek known as "Old Garden Creek". After emerging from a culvert beneath Ramona Street and adjacent properties,the small creek within a defined deep channel rums through the existing senior apartment complex adjacent to the paved parking area that will be utilized as the building site for the new apartment building. The creek at this location has been historically diverted and channelized to accommodate adjacent commercial development. The existing parking lot paving is constructed to the edge of the creek bank and was constructed prior to the City's creek setback ordinance that presently requires a 20-foot setback for such improvements from the edge of the creek bank. The proposed project would remove the non-conforming parking lot and construct an apartment building that conforms to the City's 20-foot creek setback. The project, however, proposes to construct a concrete pedestrian pathway within the creek setback, therefore requesting an exception to the standards. Additionally, a new pedestrian bridge would span the creek and allow pedestrians to access a parking lot on the other side of the creek. The project also includes the reconstruction of an existing pedestrian bridge that currently spans the creek to allow for wheelchair access. The project does not include grading or other modifications to the creek channel. �/ CRY of SAN Luis DBlspo 8 INmAL STUDY ENV ommEwAL CNECKusT 2004 Issues, Discussion and Support .Iformation Sources Souroes R jPotentially Less Than No The Village Senior Apartments PD/ER 163-02 sig sues rat Siguficant Significant impact ER# 163-02 isUnless Impact Mitigation Incorporated No known candidate, sensitive, or special status species occur within the riparian habitat of the creek, or within areas beyond the creek corridor that will be impacted by the proposed project. Mitigation is necessary to ensure compliance with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance, and to prevent construction vehicles, dirt, debris, silt, or other items from entering the creek channel or setback area. Mitigation is also necessary to guide the development with respect to the new footbridge and pedestrian pathways. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. 3.Mitigation Measures: Biological Resources a) All construction activities including grading, vegetation removal, stockpiling, equipment storage etc. shall remain outside of the creek bank, creek channel and 20-foot creek setback at all times unless specific exceptions are approved by the City's Natural Resource Manager, the Department of Fish and Game, and clearly identified on the approved project plans. The creek setback line shall be established by the City's Natural Resource Manager and shall be clearly marked in the field. b) Prior to removal of the asphalt and prior to any grading or construction on site, the top of the creek bank shall be fenced with appropriate silt fencing and all vegetation shall be protected with orange snow fencing. The fencing shall remain in place and maintained as necessary throughout the entire duration of the construction project. Hay bales and waddles will be required at the edge of the creek bank to prevent construction debris from entering the creek channel during a storm event. c) No trees or existing vegetation within the vicinity of the creek shall be trimmed, removed or otherwise interfered with without prior to approval of the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director. d) Construction of the bridge and associated improvements crossing the creek shall require permits from the Department of Fish and Game unless otherwise exempted from such review. e) No improvements such as concreted pathways or other similar new construction shall be allowed to encroach closer than the edge of existing improvements(asphalt parking lot)on site. f) Approval of pathway construction within the creek setback shall be subject to approval of a creek setback exception by the City Council and shall require a plan that identifies the removal of non-native shrubs and groundcover within the creek bank. g) A creek restoration plan, that includes native landscaping, shall be approved by the City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director. Following construction, prior to occupancy of the building, the creek bank and setback area shall be planted with native shrubs, groundcover and/or tree species to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager consistent with the approved plan. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a _X__ historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an __X_ archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource _X_ or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of —X-- formal cemeteries? The site is not identified on any of the City's archeological resource maps and no known archeological sites have been determined to exist within the immediate vicinity. The site does not contain any historic structures and no known historic structures exist within the vicinity. The project site is currently developed with a parking lot and �i CITv OF SAN Luis 081SPo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 J:�,4c')- Issues, Discussion and Support ..dormation Sources sources Po �.y Potentially Less Than No The Village Senior Apartments PD/ER 163-02 sigma .ant significant significant Impact ER# 163-02 Issues unless impact Mitigation Incorporated a residential apartment building. There are no exposed native soils on the project site that will be covered with new construction. Recent construction activity at the site required the preparation of a phase one and phase 2 archeological studies to be prepared on March 22, 1997. The report,prepared by Heritage Discoveries concluded that archeological materials are not present. No further studies were recommended. A new phase one report is not warranted at this time and cannot occur without removing at least a portion of the existing parking lot. An archeologist should prepare an additional surface examination of the property when the parking lot excavation has occurred. Construction of the new project will require removal of the existing parking lot pavement and surface grading to prepare for new construction. No significant grading or excavation of the site is required for this project. It is not anticipated that cultural resources will be impacted by the proposed development; however mitigation is necessary in the event that unexpected cultural resources, including archeological or paleontological resources, are discovered during construction. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. 4.Mitigation Measure: Cultural Resources a) A phase one archaeological study shall be performed upon removal of the parking lot paving. The project shall incorporate the recommendations of the study or perform additional monitoring as required y the report. b) During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural, historic or paleontological material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? _X_ b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient _X_ manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource _X__ that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? No known mineral resources are known to the project site or immediate vicinity. No impacts to energy and mineral resources are anticipated. The proposed project does not conflict with the City's energy conservation plan and proposes to develop additional residential dwellings on an infill site close to services and surrounded by existing development. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse --X-- effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the _X_ most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? �� CRY OF SAN Luis OBtspo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2004 Issues, Discussion and Support. aformation Sources sources Po y Potentially Less Than No The Village Senior Apartments PD/ER 163-02 si Issues s Significant significant Impact Issues ER# 163-02 unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated H. Strong seismic ground sbaking? —X— III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? —X— IV. Landslides or mudflows? —X— b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? —X-- c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that —X- would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the —X— Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. In fact, prior to the preparation of this document on December 22, 2003, an earthquake measuring 6.5 on the Richter scale was experienced in San Luis Obispo County and a second earthquake measuring 6.0 was recorded on September 27, 2004. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. If structures are designed to required UBC standards,no additional mitigation will be required. The project is not likely to result in the loss of topsoil or substantial erosion since no significant grading is proposed in order to construct the improvements. Moderately expansive soils are common in the project vicinity. All new construction will require a City building permit, and therefore require construction that will meet or exceed building code standards for these types of soils. Conclusion: As proposed, the project is not likely to create significant impacts to area geology or soils when the constructed to current building codes. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the prc'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment throughthethe routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment —X— through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely —X— hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous —X— emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous —X— materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within two miles miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residiq&or working in_the project area? `r CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Issues, Discussion and Support.. aformation Sources sources Pt '.1 Potentially Less Than No The Village Senior Apartments PD/ER 163-02 sigk....:ant significant significant Impact ER#163-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco trued g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the —X— adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, --X— or death,involving wrldland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? The project proposal does not involve hazardous materials or hazardous conditions. The project involves the construction of residential apartments within a developed residential property. Demolition of the site, which includes removal of the existing asphalt and pedestrian footbridge, and construction of the new structure does create the potential to release construction vehicle emissions and create dust and debris that could be hazardous and annoying to adjacent residents. Conclusion: If the project is constructed in compliance with proposed mitigation measures as described within the Air Quality section above, less than significant impacts are likely to occur. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge —X-- requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere —X— substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the --X— capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or --X— area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or —X— area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on —X— a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which --X-- would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into —X-- ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? The project site is adjacent to a creek and the areas adjacent to this creek are within a B flood Zone as shown on the City of San Luis Obispo Flood Insurance Rate Map. The B zone is described as an area between the 100 and 500-year flood zone. Within this zone, all residential construction must be designed with a finish floor that is at least 1 foot above the limits of the 100-year flood depth. A Preliminary Flood Impact Analysis has been CRY OF SAN LUIS OBlspo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Issues, Discussion and Support. _ ...formation Sources Sources Po Potentially Less Than No The Village Senior Apartments PD/ER 163-02 sigi__ am Significant Significant Impact ER# 163 02 lssncs unless Lnpact Mitigation Incorporated prepared for the project. Proposed construction on the site is shown with a finish floor elevation that will meet flood standards in compliance with the Building Code. Since the culvert below Ramona Drive is undersized, during significant storm events water flows over Ramona Drive and into the project site before spilling back into the creek. This portion of the project site would contain the apartment building. In order to avoid the potential of overflowing creek water from being directed towards the new building, the project proposes to construct a diverter wall that will redirect any overflow water back into the creek before it enters the project site. This portion of Garden Creek is known to be impacted during storm events due to limited flow area from excessive creek growth (grasses, reeds, bulrushes). Native White alder trees should be incorporated into the creek landscape plan in order to create additional shade, therefore reducing the amount of dense growth in the creek bed and allowing adequate flow. This will enhance creek flow while enhancing wildlife habitat and reducing water temperature. As required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board the project will be required to utilize Best Management Practices in handling site drainage and runoff. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. S. Mitigation Measures: Hydrology and Water Quality a) All site drainage shall be directed towards the public right of way or on site private drainage systems unless other provisions are approved by the City. b) Where feasible, driveways, parking areas or private streets shall be constructed of pervious materials such as turf block to enhance on-site water percolation. c) Where a lack of native tree cover and vegetation allows for creek bank planting, White Alder trees shall be planted ten feet on center with the intention of shading the creek bed and bank. The Natural Resources Manager shall approve the final planting plan. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project 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? The proposed residential development does not conflict with any known habitat conservation plan or applicable land use plan. The site is zoned for high density residential (R-4) and the proposed housing is consistent with the City's Land Use designation. The requested entitlements include an exception to the City's Creek Setback Ordinance, however the project does not propose development that extends closer to the creek habitat than the existing development on site. The site improvements are likely to enhance the relationship between the built environment and the creek area since the existing surface parking area at the edge of the creek bank will be removed and the new structure would comply with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance. Only pedestrian pathways are proposed in the creek setback areas and the new pathways would replace an area that is presently an asphalt parking lot. Conclusion: No impacts to Land Use and Planning are anticipated. �r CrrY OF SAN Luis Osispo 13 INmAL STUDY ENviRONMENTAL CimcK JsT 2004 �''1+LP Issues, Discussion and Support. .information Sources sources Pa .1 Potentially Lass Than No The Village Senior Apartments PD/ER 163-02 Sigi. .Ant Significant Significant Impact ER# 163-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise —X— levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in __X__ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above Ievels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome _X__ vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within _X__ two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project may result in temporary substantial increases in noise exposure to existing residential tenants during the construction phase of the project. The noise levels can be maintained to not exceed acceptable noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element with the incorporation of appropriate work hours and use of equipment. The demolition of the existing parking area and all new construction will need to occur during peak activity hours of adjacent residential tenants in order to ensure minimal noise disruption. Conclusion: Following completion of site construction, the proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive noise levels since it incorporates only twenty senior restricted residential apartment units. Other than short-term construction noise the completed project will not place residents within close proximity of excessive noise levels. Less than significant impacts to noise exposure is anticipated with proposed mitigation measures. 6.Mitigation Measures: Noise a) Unless already incorporated, existing west facing windows at apartments facing 55 Broad Street and existing windows at 61 Broad Street facing north and west within the project vicinity shall be dual glazed windows rated for maximum noise suppression. Existing vents and openings shall be fitted with noise reducing baffles or other measures in order to reduce exposure to temporary construction noise. b) Construction schedule shall strictly adhere to City Noise standards. No construction activities shall be allowed prior to 8 am or after 7 pm and no noise producing construction activities shall be allowed on weekends unless the City Building Official, following notification of affected tenants, approves specific exceptions. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly _X_ (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitatingthethe construction of replacement housing elsewhere? This project proposes the construction of twenty senior apartment units in a location that is designated on the general plan for such uses. The quantity of units at this location is not anticipated to affect population growth. `/ CIrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Issues, Discussion and Support. .formation Sources sources Pa I Potentially Less Than xo The Village Senior Apartments PD/ER 163-02 sig.. .rat significant significant lmpact ER# 163-02 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated The new units will not displace existing residents and no existing residential units are proposed to be removed with the new construction. Conclusion: No impacts to population or housing are anticipated. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? —X— b) Police protection? --X— c) Schools? —X-- d) Parks? —X— e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? —X— Other public facilities? —X— The project will not create significant impacts to local public services since it is currently within a residential planned development that is currently served by City utilities and associated-infrastructure. The development of the project will require the installation of new water mains and sewer connections. The City Fire and Police Departments have indicated that the new site can be served with adequate response times. The project will be subject to impact fees that will cumulatively offset any increased demands on roads and other public services. As discussed in the traffic section, the project may be subject to road improvements in order to create safe and adequate circulation to the site. Conclusion: Less than significant impacts to Public Services are anticipated. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or —X— other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? A component of the project includes on site walldng paths and outdoor use areas. The population served by the residential units is restricted to seniors. Conclusion: No significant impacts to recreation facilities are anticipated with the incorporation of twenty residential units. 15. TRANSPORTATIONfrRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the --X-- existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service --X-- standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp --X-- curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? —X— e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? —X— f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative —X— �� Cm or SAN Luis Osispo 15 INmAL STUDY ENviRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Issues, Discussion and Support. ..formation Sources sources Po , Potentiatty Less Than No The Village Senior Apartments PD/ER 163-02 sig ant Significant significant Impact ER# 163-02 Issues Unless imps Mitigation Inco rated transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a chane in air trafficpatterns? The project will introduce 20 residential units and will therefore increase parking demands and vehicle trips to the site. A new access driveway developed to City Standards will provide access to a new parking deck built over an existing parking area. As proposed, the project complies with City Standards for the required number of parking spaces and the parking and driveway widths are designed to meet the City's required standards. Mitigation is necessary to ensure that an adequate parking supply is available to existing tenants, visitors and employees during the construction process. As required by the Public Works Division,the following road and site improvements may be required as project conditions: 1. The existing driveway approaches along Ramona shall be replaced, altered or upgraded to comply with current city standards. 2. The existing curb ramp located at the corner of Broad and Ramona shall be upgraded or replaced to comply with current city and ADA standards. The curb ramp upgrade shall be coordinated the Transportation Planner for possible inclusion of traffic calming bulb-outs at this intersection. Additional site distance analysis may be required in order to determine the appropriate design of such improvements. 3. Public pedestrian easements shall be offered to the city for any ADA extensions proposed over private property. 4. The building plan submittal shall show all required short-term and long-term bicycle parking. The City Fire Department has reviewed the proposed access to the site and agrees that the proposed development will result in adequate emergency access. Conclusion: With incorporation of mitigation to ensure a continuous supply of adequate parking and access to the site the project will result in less than significant impacts. 7.Mitigation Measures: Transportation/Traffic a) A construction phasing plan that ensures uninterrupted site access and an adequate supply of off-street parking shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a construction permit. The phasing plan should require the construction of the parking structure and an accessible pedestrian bridge crossing prior to demolition of the existing site parking on the east side of the creek. As an alternative, a temporary off-site parking plan with a shuttle to serve tenants, visitors and employees may be utilized. b) Construction vehicles, construction employees shall park off street on the project site during construction. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable —X-- Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water -X— treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project --X-- from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and �r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIspo 16 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2004 Issues, Discussion and Supporb. ..,formation Sources sources Po -i Potentially L=s Than No The Village Senior Apartments PD/ER 163-02 Sig Significant Significant Impact ER# 163-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider _X_ which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to _X__ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations -X-- related to solid waste? The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a per residential basis. Section 13.08.130B of the Municipal Code states that no polluted water may be discharged to a drainage system that flows to any creek or to the City storm drain system. As designed, the project removes an existing surface parking lot to allow a new apartment project and site improvements. Construction of such improvements will require review by the Regional Water Quality Control Board because of the demolition of existing asphalt and the construction of a new pedestrian bridge within close proximity to the creek. Additional mitigation will not be required if appropriate review is obtained to allow the project entitlements. As designed, the project is not anticipated to allow polluted water to reach the creek. As discussed above in the Biological Resources section, mitigation measures are designed to protect the creek from short-term construction impacts. Conclusion: In Summary the project is anticipated to create less than significant impacts to utilities and service systems when the site is developed consistent with City standards and in accordance with code requirements recommended by the City Utilities Department in addition to requirements from the Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the _X_ environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? N/A b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but __X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future m"ects) N/A c) Does the project have envirorunental effects which will cause substantial adverse adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? N/A CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 17 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 V 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 analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,July 2002 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation Element,July 1973 6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,April 1981 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996 8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database 11. Site Visit 12. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 13. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: httpJ/www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 14. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District, 1995 15. Preliminary Flood Analysis. 16. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996 17. 2001 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report 18. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 19. Phase 1 archeology Heritage Discoveries,March 1997 20. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma 21. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 22. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department 23. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 24. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Conimunity Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981 25. San Luis Obispo County ort Land Use Plan 26. Architectural Review Guidelines 27. 1997 Uniform Building Code All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California(805)781-7522. � �SI Issues, Discussion and Supporti,� ..formation Sources sources Pa y Potentially Less Than No Sigi.__.ent Significant Significant Impact PD/ER 163-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 55 Broad Street Incorporated REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 1.Mitigation Measure:Aesthetics All new exterior light sources shall be designed with full cutoff fixtures that conceal the light source. If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare shall be required,to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Monitoring Program: A lighting photometric plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department as part of the construction plan check. An examination of installed lighting will be analyzed prior to occupancy of the site. 2.Mitigation Measures: Air Quality The following dust mitigation measures are.designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution impacts associated with grading and construction of the site. They are required from the start, and are to be maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: a) Unless otherwise approved, an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District for review and approval prior to the start of any construction or grading activity. The plan,if required shall be implemented during all phases of earthwork at the site. b) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15) miles per hour or less; c) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; e) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; f) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and g) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours. Monitoring Program: An asbestos dust mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Air Quality District prior to issuance of a construction permit. City staff shall ensure compliance with standards through site inspections. 3.Mitigation Measures: Biological Resources a) All construction activities including grading, vegetation removal, stockpiling, equipment storage etc. shall remain outside of the creek bank, creek channel and 20-foot creek setback at all times unless specific exceptions are approved by the City's Natural Resource Manager; the Department of Fish and Game, and clearly identified on the approved project plans. The creek setback line shall be established by the City's Natural Resource Manager and shall be clearly marked in the field. b) Prior to removal of the asphalt and prior to any grading or construction on site, the top of the creek bank shall be fenced with appropriate silt fencing and all vegetation shall be protected with orange snow fencing. The'fencing shall remain in place and maintained as necessary throughout the entire duration of the construction project. Hay bales and waddles will be required at the edge of the creek bank to prevent construction debris from entering the creek channel during a storm event. �� CRY OF SAN LUIS oBlspo 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Issues, Discussion and Suppor .dorrriation Sources So== Pc _y Potentially Less Than No Si, ant Significant Significant Impact PD/ER 163-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 55 Broad Street Incotpomted c) No trees or existing vegetation within the vicinity of the creek shall be trimmed, removed or otherwise interfered with without prior to approval of the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director. d) Construction of the bridge and associated improvements crossing the creek shall require permits from the Department of Fish and Game unless otherwise exempted from such review. e) No improvements such as concreted pathways or other similar new construction shall be allowed to encroach closer than the edge of existing improvements (asphalt parking lot) on site. f) Approval of pathway construction within the creek setback shall be subject to approval of a creek setback exception by the City Council and shall require a plan that identifies the removal of non- native shrubs and groundcover within the creek bank. g) A creek restoration plan, that includes native landscaping, shall be approved by the City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director. Following construction, prior to occupancy of the building, the creek bank and setback area shall be planted with native shrubs, groundcover and/or tree species to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager consistent with the approved plan. Monitoring Program: Prior to release of City construction permits,the riparian areas shall be inspected for fencing and erosion control protection. A separate permit shall be secured by the Department of Fish and Game and other applicable agencies prior to issuance of a City construction permit that allows work within or over the creek area including the creek bank area. 4.Mitigation Measures: Cultural Resources a) A phase one archaeological study shall be performed upon removal of the parking lot paving. The project shall incorporate the recommendations of the study or perform additional monitoring as required y the report. b) During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural, historic or paleontological material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. Monitoring Program: Ongoing field inspections by City staff and construction staff awareness shall ensure compliance with the mitigation measures. The project shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Demolition Ordinance for the demolition or relocation of the existing residence upon submittal of construction permit applications. 5. Mitigation Measures: Hydrology and Water Quality a) All site drainage shall be directed towards the public right of way or on site private drainage systems unless other provisions are approved by the City. b) Where feasible, driveways, parking areas or private streets shall be constructed of pervious materials such as turf block to enhance on-site water percolation. c) Where a lack of native tree cover and vegetation allows for creek bank planting, White Alder trees shall be planted ten feet on center with the intention of shading the creek bed and bank. The Natural Resources Manager shall approve the final planting plan. �� CITY OF SAN Luts OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Issues, Discussion and Suppo dormation Sources sources e , Potentially Less Than No S. ;ant Significant Significant Impact PD/ER 163-02 issues Unless Impact Mitigation 55 Broad Street Incorporated Monitoring Program: Construction plans, including a grading and drainage plan, shall reflect direction of drainage and identify any proposed detention or retention. Pervious paving materials(where used)shall be shown on the construction plans. Drainage systems and applicable installations shall be incorporated into the site prior to final inspection. 6.Mitigation Measures: Noise a) Unless already incorporated, existing west facing windows at apartments facing 55 Broad Street and existing windows at 61 Broad Street facing north and west within the project vicinity shall be dual glazed windows rated for maximum noise suppression. Existing vents and openings shall be fitted with noise reducing baffles or other measures in order to reduce exposure to temporary construction noise. b) Construction schedule shall strictly adhere to City Noise standards. No construction activities shall be allowed prior to 8 am or after 7 pm and no noise producing construction activities shall be allowed on weekends unless the City Building Official, following notification of affected tenants, approves specific exceptions. Monitoring Program: Construction hours and noise standards shall be clearly listed on the construction drawings. Insulated windows and other mitigation as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department shall be incorporated into existing apartment units prior to commencement of construction. 7.Mitigation Measures: TransportationlTraffic a) A construction phasing plan that ensures uninterrupted site access and an adequate supply of off- street parking shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a construction permit. The phasing plan should require the construction of the parking structure and an accessible pedestrian bridge crossing prior to demolition of the existing site parking on the east side of the creek. As an alternative, a temporary off-site parking plan with a shuttle to serve tenants, visitors and employees may be utilized. b) Construction vehicles, construction employees shall park off street on the project site during construction. Monitoring Program: A construction phasing plan and interim parking and access plan shall be submitted for review and approval as part of the building permit application package. Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced scale project plans. Attachment 3: Phase 1 and 2 Archeology by Heritage Discoveries, March 1997 G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\PD 163-02 55 Broad\ER- 163-02 initial study.doc CRY of SAN LUIS Oatspo 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 7 �� "- Attachment 7 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. (2004 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR 55 BROAD STREET TO ALLOW TWENTY NEW SENIOR APARTMENTS AND A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN INCLUDING A CREEK SETBACK EXCEPTION PD/ER 163-02 (55 Broad Street) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 13, 2004 and recommended approval of amendments to the Planned Development to allow to allow 20 new senior apartments and a creek setback exception; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 16, 2004 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Planned Development amendment / is consistent with the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed Planned Development amendment, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs: 1. Aesthetics: All new exterior light sources shall be designed with full cutoff fixtures that conceal the light source. If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare shall be required,to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Monitoring Program: A lighting photometric plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department as part of the construction plan check. An examination of installed lighting will be analyzed prior to occupancy of the site. 2. Air Quality: The following dust mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution impacts associated with grading and construction of the site. They are required from the start, and are to be maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: Attachment 7 Ordinance No.(DRAFT) (2004 Series) PD/ER 163-02 Page 2 a) Unless otherwise approved, an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District for review and approval prior to the start of any construction or grading activity. The plan, if required shall be implemented during all phases of earthwork at the site. b) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; c) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; e) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; f) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and g) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24) hours. Monitoring Program: An asbestos dust mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Air Quality District prior to issuance of a construction permit. City staff shall ensure compliance with standards through site inspections. Biological Resources: 3. All construction activities including grading, vegetation removal, stockpiling, equipment storage etc. shall remain outside of the creek bank, creek channel and 20-foot creek setback at all times unless specific exceptions are approved by the City's Natural Resource Manager, the Department of Fish and Game, and clearly identified on the approved project plans. The creek setback line shall be established by the City's Natural Resource Manager and shall be clearly marked in the field. 4. Prior to removal of the asphalt and prior to any grading or construction on site, the top of the creek bank shall be fenced with appropriate silt fencing and all vegetation shall be protected with orange snow fencing. The fencing shall remain in place and maintained as necessary throughout the entire duration of the construction project. Hay bales and waddles will be required at the edge of the creek bank to prevent construction debris from entering the creek channel during a storm event. 5. No trees or existing vegetation within the vicinity of the creek shall be trimmed, removed or otherwise interfered with without prior to approval of the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Director. 6. Construction of the bridge and associated improvements crossing the creek shall require permits from the Department of Fish and Game unless otherwise exempted from such review. Attachment 7 Ordinance No. (DRAFT) (2004 Series) PD/ER 163-02 Page 3 7. No improvements such as concreted pathways or other similar new construction shall be allowed to encroach closer than the edge of existing improvements (asphalt parking lot) on site. 8. Approval of pathway construction within the creek setback shall be subject to approval of a creek setback exception by the City Council and shall require a plan that identifies the removal of non-native shrubs and groundcover within the creek bank. 9. A creek restoration plan, that includes native landscaping, shall be approved by the City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director. Following construction, prior to occupancy of the building, the creek bank and setback area shall be planted with native shrubs, groundcover and/or tree species to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager consistent with the approved plan. Monitoring Program: Prior to release of City construction permits, the riparian areas shall be inspected for fencing and erosion control protection. A separate permit shall be secured by the Department of Fish and Game and other applicable agencies prior to issuance of a City construction permit that allows work within or over the creek area including the creek bank area. Cultural Resources: 10. A phase one archaeological study shall be performed upon removal of the parking lot paving. The project shall incorporate the recommendations of the study or perform additional monitoring as required y the report. 11. During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural, historic or paleontological material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. Monitoring Program: Ongoing field inspections by City staff and construction staff awareness shall ensure compliance with the mitigation measures. The project shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Demolition Ordinance for the demolition or relocation of the existing residence upon submittal of construction permit applications. Hydrology and Water Quality: 12. All site drainage shall be directed towards the public right of way or on site private drainage systems unless other provisions are approved by the City. 13. Where feasible, driveways, parking areas or private streets shall be constructed of pervious materials such as turf block to enhance on-site water percolation. Attachment 7 Ordinance No.(DRAFT) (2004 Series) PD/ER 163-02 Page 4 14. Where.a lack of native tree cover and vegetation allows for creek bank planting,White Alder trees shall be planted ten feet on center with the intention of shading the creek bed and bank. The Natural Resources Manager shall approve the final planting plan. Monitoring Program: Construction plans, including a grading and drainage plan, shall reflect direction of drainage and identify any proposed detention or retention. Pervious paving materials (where used) shall be shown on the construction plans. Drainage systems and applicable installations shall be incorporated into the site prior to final inspection. Noise 15. Unless already incorporated, existing west facing windows at apartments facing 55 Broad Street and existing windows at 61 Broad Street facing north and west within the project vicinity shall be dual glazed windows rated for maximum noise suppression. Existing vents and openings shall be fitted with noise reducing baffles or other measures in order to reduce exposure to temporary construction noise. 16. Construction schedule shall strictly adhere to City Noise standards. No construction activities shall be allowed prior to 8 am or after 7 pm and no noise producing construction activities shall be allowed on weekends unless the City Building Official, following notification of affected tenants, approves specific exceptions. Monitoring Program: Construction hours and noise standards shall be clearly listed on the construction drawings. Insulated windows and other mitigation as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department shall be incorporated into existing apartment units prior to commencement of construction. Transportation/Traffic 17. A construction phasing plan that ensures uninterrupted site access and an adequate supply of off-street parking shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a construction permit. The phasing plan should require the construction of the parking structure and an accessible pedestrian bridge crossing prior to demolition of the existing site parking on the east. side of the creek. As an alternative, a temporary off-site parking plan with a shuttle to serve tenants, visitors and employees may be utilized. 18. Construction vehicles, construction employees shall park off street on the project site during construction. Monitoring Program: A construction phasing plan and interim parking and access plan shall be submitted for review and approval as part of the building permit application package. Attachment 7 Ordinance No.(DRAFT) (2004 Series) PD/ER 163-02 Page 5 SECTION 2. Fes. The City Council makes the following findings: General Findings 1. The proposed project (establishment of 20 senior apartments) is consistent with the General Plan, and with approval of the Planned Development Amendment, the proposed land use is allowed within the applicable primary R-4 zoning district since high-density housing is intended to be located within this district. 2. Except for the requested creek setback exceptions, the project complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations as described within the property development standards for the High-Density Residential district. 3. All affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. 4. The location, size, site planning and operating characteristics of the project are highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood, and will be compatible with the character of the site, and the land uses and development intended for the surrounding neighborhood by the General Plan. 5. The site is suitable for the project in terms of size, configuration, topography, adequate parking and other applicable features, and has appropriate access to public streets with adequate capacity to accommodate the quantity and type of traffic expected to be generated by the use. 6. As conditioned, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project will not, in the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. Creek Setback Findings 7. The location and design of the pathways and narrow pedestrian bridge requiring the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. 8. The exception will not limit the city's design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies. 9. The exception will not prevent the implementation of city-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans. � !Yi Attachment 7 Ordinance No. (DRAFT) (2004 Series) PD/ER 163-02 Page 6 10. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning because the site is irregularly-shaped and has an extensive amount of lineal creek frontage. 11. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege —an entitlement inconsistent With the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning because properties have significantly greater encroachments into the required creek setback and the project will remove existing pavement which encroaches into the setback. 12. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream; and 13. Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project; and 14. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property because the current design actually appreciably enhances the health and extent of the riparian corridor by the removal of existing asphalt paving located in the creek setback area, removal of invasive plant materials, and new planting of riparian plant materials to augment existing desirable vegetation. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council hereby approves application PD 163-02 to allow the addition of 20 new senior apartments, a creek setback exception to allow pedestrian paths and a footbridge, and a revised development plan with a two story parking structure, subject to the following conditions and code requirements. 1. Within 6 months of City Council approval (following approval by the Architectural Review Commission) the applicant shall prepare and submit a final amended development plan to the Community Development Director consistent with Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.62.060. 2. An affordable housing agreement (per the City's Inclusionary Housing Requiremnts) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to proceeding to the Architectural Review Commission, following approval of the applicable entitlements by the City Council. 3. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the project design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines following approval of the planned development amendment by the City Council. L� Attachment 7 Ordinance No.(DRAFT) (2004 Series) PD/ER 163-02 Page 7 4. The PD amendment allows for the establishment of 20 new apartments units with a maximum dwelling unit density count of 16 units. 5. Parking for employees of any of the senior housing uses within the PD shall utilize the upper deck of the parking lot accessed from Palomar Street. Appropriate signs and employee regulations shall be established.prior to occupancy of the new units. 6. The parking structure and associated improvements shall be constructed prior to eliminating existing parking spaces and constructing the new apartment units in order to ensure continuation of adequate on-site parking. SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the 16th day of November, 2004, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _ day of , 2004, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Audrey Hooper LtyAPPRD AS TO FORM: Attorney Jonathanwell G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\Smith Volvo PD amend\PD 91-04 draft cc ord.doc -' RECEIVED RED FILE NOV 12 2004 MIE ING AGENDA BILL AND JENANN McLENNAN SLO CITY CLERK ITE".I ................... 706 MEINECKE AVE. DAT, 1` SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405 (805)549-9517 E-NAIL:NCL706®AOL.COM November 12, 2004 City Counsel Members City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, California --L57CouNCI�DD DIR RA-70RNEY CAO FIN DIR ACAO FIRE CHIEF Re: 55 Broad/Ramona Senior Apartments DPW DIR (PD 163-02) l;1 �'CLERK/ORIG1—G'pOLICECHF DST HEADS .�aEC DIR Hearin date: November 16, 2004 /r- 1 �fYLs � f uTIL DIR g City Counsel Members: My wife and I live at 706 Meinecke, adjacent to the planned development for senior living at 55 Broad Street. The Planning Commission recently approved construction of 20 units of senior housing at this location. A public hearing on this matter is set for November 16, 2004. In 1997, the city counsel approved the construction of a large assisted living complex at this site. After extensive negotiations and numerous public hearings, the following language was included in Resolution 8673 to protect neighborhood parking and provide balance between the new project and the existing neighborhood: "The management and owners will establish and enforce rules which require that staff and residents park on site" For clarity and to insure the continued protection of our neighborhood, I am requesting that this same language be included in the new resolution for the present project. Both staff and the project owners have no objection to this request. oerwith best regards, cLennan