Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/2004, PH7 - REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN, ADJUST THE DEVELOPMENT LIMIT LINE AND REZONE THE PROPERTY AT 215 Council j acEnaa Repout lu.Nm CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct'9�� Prepared By: Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN, ADJUST THE DEVELOPMENT LIMIT LINE AND REZONE THE PROPERTY AT 215 BRIDGE STREET TO ACCOMMODATE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL INCLUDE SIXTEEN RESIDENTIAL SITES AND AN EIGHT- UNIT COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. (GP/RfrR/ER-64-03) CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 27, 2004: 1. Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation from Services and Manufacturing to Medium-Density Residential (for a portion of the site) and adjust the hillside development limit line from the 175-foot contour to the 185-foot contour, and approving a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 64-03). 2. Introduce an ordinance changing the zoning on the subject property below the 185-foot elevation contour from Manufacturing and Conservation Open Space to Medium-Density Residential Planned Development and Manufacturing Planned Development (R-2-PD and M-PD). 3. Adopt a resolution approving a subdivision with sixteen residential lots and a remainder parcel, and a commercial condominium with eight commercial airspace units, including a creek setback exception to allow the replacement of the vehicular bridge with a clear span design. DISCUSSION Situation Following substantial additional analysis, the revised Bridge Street Project is before the City Council to seek approval of a planned development with sixteen,residential lots and an eight-unit commercial condominium. Project revisions have been incorporated to respond to a noise analysis, flood analysis and geotechnical studies that have been prepared for the property. Plannina Commission Action The Planning Commission reviewed the revised project submittal on October 27, 2004, and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council. The Planning Commission resolution, hearing minutes and staff report are attached (Attachments 4, 5 and 6). ( Council Agenda Report—PL._.AIER 64-03 December 7,2004 Page.2 Proiect History The Planning Commission reviewed the original project on September 10, and November 5, 2003. Following a significant amount of public testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the project to the City Council on a 6-1 vote. The project consisted of a 21-lot planned development subdivision with 13 residences, four secondary dwelling units and 8 work- live units. The project proposed to offer at least half of the residential units as deed-restricted, moderately affordable units. On December 3, 2003, the City Council reviewed the planned development and denied the project without prejudice on a 5-0 vote. The Council had concerns with the placement and design of residential structures within a flood zone and adjacent to existing manufacturing uses. Other issues discussed at the hearing were noise conflicts, insufficient parking and neighborhood compatibility. In response to the City Council's comments, the project was reconfigured to eliminate residential uses adjacent to the manufacturing building on the narrow portion of the property near Bridge Street. Instead, eight commercial units are now proposed on the eastern edge of the access corridor and sixteen residential units with three secondary dwelling units would be constructed towards the rear of the site. The Planning Commission first reviewed the revised project on June 23, 2004. The Public Works Department determined that a revised drainage/flood analysis would be required because the City's regulations for development within a flood plain were revised since the original project submittal. Additionally, in response to requirements of the Safety Element regarding areas of potential landslide risks, an expanded geotechnical study was required in order to evaluate the restrictions with building residential structures at this site. Rather than requiring the applicant to prepare the additional studies prior to proceeding to City Council, the Planning Commission continued the item to allow these items to be prepared prior to making a recommendation on the project. Additionally, the Planning Commission asked for minor amendments to the parking and driveway plan to allow for better circulation and compliance with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance. The applicant returned to the Planning Commission on October 27, 2004 with the requested project amendments and additional studies regarding flooding and landslide risk. Following a brief discussion of the flood zone requirements and the findings of the geotechnical study, the Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the project to the City Council. Proiect Description The project is a seventeen-lot Planned Development with sixteen lots proposed as residential homesites and one lot reserved for an 8-unit airspace commercial condominium development, located adjacent to the creek and the Bailey Bridge building. Reduced scale project drawings and the applicant's project description can be found in Attachments 2 and 3. The existing General Plan Map designates the 7.73-acre site as Services and Manufacturing with a large portion of the site above the 175-foot contour designated as Open Space. The proposed Amendment would designate 2.19 acres as Medium-Density Residential, .55 acres remaining in Services and —7 Council Agenda Report—PL.-A/ER 64-03 December 7,2004 Page 3 Manufacturing adjacent to Bridge Street, and 5 acres on the hillside remaining in Open Space. The General Plan Amendment would modify the location of the development limit line from the 175-foot contour up to the 185-foot contour at the base of the South Street Hills. The adjustment of the development limit line on the property will create approximately .3 of an acre additional development area on land that is currently designated as Open Space. Consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use designations, the Services and Manufacturing area would be zoned M-PD, the Medium Density Residential area would be zoned R-2-PD, and the Open Space would be zoned C/OS-5. The proposed project incorporates sustainable building concepts and provides for two affordable housing units. The development plan for the site is proposed in the following configuration: Lot 1: 8-unit commercial condominium, M-PD Zoning. Lots 2,3, 6,8: two bedroom residences, R-2-PD Zoning. Lots 4 and 7: one bedroom residences,R-2-PD Zoning. Lots 5, 9 and 13: Studio dwelling units, R-2-PD Zoning. Lots 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16: three bedroom residences, R-2-PD Zoning. Lots 17: four bedroom dwelling unit, R-2-PD Zoning. Lots 12, 16 and 17 would contain secondary studio dwelling units of 450 square feet in size. Remainder Parcel: Existing single-family residence to remain within Open Space (C/OS-5) Zoning (5.06 acres). This parcel will also be protected by a conservation easement that will restrict hillside development. Evaluation A comprehensive project evaluation is included in the attached Planning Commission (PC) staff report (Attachment 6). This information is essential to the decision making process. In addition, a separate attachment (Attachment 7) evaluates the project in terms of the City's General Plan. The following analysis summarizes information, from the applicant's studies and subsequent staff analysis, presented to the Planning Commission on October 27, 2004. Planned.Development Zoning and Density In addition to governing the development plan, the purpose of the PD zoning will be to allow the density allocated to the 2.19-acre site to be clustered within level building areas, preserving the sensitive portions of the site and the hillsides. The 2.19-acre site falls within the 10% to 15% slope category and would allow 26.28 density units while only 19.83 density units are proposed. The project complies with allowed residential density for the R-2 district. In order to approve a Planned Development rezoning, the Council must make at least two of the following findings: 1. A minimum of 25 percent of the residential units within the project are affordable to households of very low, low or moderate income; 7-3 Council Agenda Report—PL._R/ER 64-03 December 7,2004 Page 4 2. The project will achieve a minimum of 30 percent greater energy efficiency than minimum required by California Code of Regulations Title 24; 3. The project will preserve, enhance, and/or create a significant natural feature with minimum area of one-half acre; or 4. The project will provide a substantial public amenity, for example, a significant public plaza, a public park, or a similar improved open space feature, including provisions for guaranteed long-term maintenance not at the expense of the City. The Planning Commission agreed that the project included features that incorporated findings 2, 3 and 4. Although the project does not propose to meet the 25% threshold for affordable housing included in the PD findings above, 10% of the proposed residential density is proposed to be deed restricted as affordable (see Attachment 8, Inclusionary Housing Proposal). Parking The parking calculations for the project are summarized in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 6). A tum-around space has now been incorporated into the plans,just south of the commercial units. Since the commercial condominium will contain a variety of tenant spaces, the commercial parking area is eligible for a 10% shared parking reduction. A 10% reduction will reduce the parking requirement by 3 spaces, allowing the amended site plan with parking removed from the creek setback area and allowing for a tum-around space to meet code requirements. The Planning Commission supported a 10% parking reduction for the commercial component of the project; the residential component of the project meets the parking requirements for the R-2 district without the need for a reduction. Geotechnical Investigation and Potential Landslide Risk Safety Element policy requires that a State registered engineer prepare a geotechnical study for the project site. A geotechnical investigation has been prepared with consideration of the potential landslide risk. The report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the engineer's recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The engineer's recommendations include retaining walls at the rear of homesites adjacent to the hillside in addition to specific measures for building pad construction and foundation design. The Geotechnical Study is available in the Council Reading File. Hydrology The applicant has prepared a flood analysis that meets City standards. The analysis has been reviewed and accepted by the City's Public Works Department. The results of the summary indicate that the proposed development will not adversely affect flood depth. Therefore the project complies with City flood regulations requirements that do not allow the post-development flood depth to be increased by more than 2'/2 inches. The proposed construction, including the proposed new bridge, will be adequately protected and or elevated above areas of potential flooding. The Hydrology Analysis is available in the Council Reading File. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires residential development projects of 5 units or more to provide at least 5% of the units as moderately affordable units or pay an in-lieu fee equal to 5% of the housing valuation. The applicant is proposing to construct 2 of the units (12.5% of the total density units) to meet the guidelines for moderately affordable housing (Attachment 8). Projects that dedicate at least 20% of the units as affordable housing are eligible 7-41 Council Agenda Report—P1.. _A/ER 64-03 December 7,2004 Page 5 for incentives such as a density bonus, fee-waivers, fee reductions or other incentives that the City deems appropriate. Although the proposal exceeds the minimum amount of affordable housing, it does not qualify the project for incentives. The applicant would be willing to consider creating additional affordable housing if incentives can be made available. In order to avoid prevailing wage requirements, the City can only offer financial incentives towards the creation of the affordable units or specific improvements triggered by the affordable units such as application and fee waivers, and direct building construction improvement costs. Staff has discussed the incentive options available for the project with the applicant. Although the applicant has prepared an Inclusionary housing proposal (Attachment 8), specific incentives have not been requested at this time. In conjunction with the City's Housing Specialist; staff will continue to explore the incentive options that can be made available. Should the applicant determine that it is feasible to accept incentives to construct additional affordable units, the applicants incentive request would be subject to Council action. Environmental Review An initial study of environmental review was drafted for the original project and a revised initial study has now been prepared for the new project submittal. Noise, flooding, geology and archeology are discussed in detail in the study and a summary of the study is included in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report. Conclusion The revised project and additional studies have appropriately addressed the comments raised by concerned citizens at the recent Planning Commission and past City Council hearings. The project seeks to construct an innovative, highly sustainable, residential subdivision on an irregular site consistent with many General Plan policies as discussed in detail in Attachment 7. In consideration of the site's location, with its adjacency to land designated as Open Space, a creek, and an existing R-2 residential neighborhood, a land use change to allow a less intensive designation of the property to accommodate the development of a sustainable housing project is a more logical and efficient use than the present Manufacturing designation. The City Council should determine if the proposed General Plan Amendment and subdivision is warranted given the merits of the project. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. 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 Manufacturing zoning in place and leaving the development limit line at the 175-foot contour. 2. Continue action, if additional information is needed, direction should be given to staff. —7 Council Agenda Report-Pi, _&ER 64-03 December 7,2004 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale project drawings 3. Applicant's project description 4. Planning Commission Resolution 5410-04 5. Planning Commission meeting minutes, October 27, 2004 6. Planning Commission staff report 7. General Plan Analysis 8. Draft Inclusionary Housing Proposal 9. Initial Study of Environmental Impact 10. Resolution amending General Plan Land Use Element Map 11. Draft Ordinance amending zoning. 12. Resolution for approval of tract map and commercial condominium. 13 . Council Correspondence G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmom\Rezoning&PDs\GPR 64-03 Bridge Street PDWew submittal 2004\Bridge Street CCtpt(12-07- 04).doc =1■ WIN � nuu ' rani 'q��d x '� � it-no I VICINITY MAP File No . 64-03 215- Bridge r � �Sy�y }y�7'`d,Qfj � �Apry,�i r l _ _ _ _ _ _.Ji.sn♦ s t fill t !!3 111, ■ t e Q Q ,� =� S A9 .i l91Ig311g fl f ! A a 5 e cc � a e F9� f IgiA� C" cesssse@ ! 7t Be iY !�� V1 §A� lyjl I e d + + +•++++!§ 455555954§444444Y g - + • i�A�. �i!!� �� 9f 9g S Sgg� Apy�igeg g i y iaaaQaaa p1 p Qaa;Qaa ■ 96 . # ` ill n"a It gg g `�,� � `1 � � > � � I� i :■.5i IIg j84R3S�t r ..�I ----------- J-7 --- \� - ;It �f 1 g■ gig � 7_ ? 133 HLS 2 a a I ee — < It � a 9 i i oC4 g p © �(� ! a j3����� i !R lei,!�16 Im lid i�i9� � g�$ �II� I ,, ti ISI Ali;' 1 m No ! g 4 8 C. �e li � - � 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 9 _ I O t . i a a a i o' � o : e i i i 0 I � 7- 9 p a p . chm t 2 al V, - t� I agES� a : 1_ B 116• Ila d _ , 1 6 Ir Irgag r - = y. `1 --ZAL ----- - Ila r 4 � r 4� a. ♦. a♦.. ji iii ♦ �� ___ �"' i/ Irl f t rr�r 1. irrur I \ 1 i -7-iv Affachm t 2 1 ., •, �, � tE;�t its ' 1 d 1 _ . 1 0 l61 \ moj" - \ Mm ME Ir 1 ffi � t 1 ,11 \ it l; \♦ - - /,iii /,�/ ,I d P ' ! 1., 1 ill r ,II I \ �F Attachment 3 The WOME f Bridge Street Neighborhood A Sustainable Mixed-Use Project 7-/Z Attachment 3 executive summary The new M:OME/Bridge Street Project is a proposed mixed-use workforce housing residential + commercial community that is environmentally friendly, sustainable, and affordable. Imagine a cost-effective, repeatable design incorporating an economical steel structure with ecologically sensitive wall systems. Imagine buildings that generate their own electricity (grid linked); hot water and heat from the power of the sun. The intent of the M:OME/Bridge Street Neighborhood Project is to bring eco-friendly development to a wider market, while doubling the city's inclusionary housing requirements for affordable housing units pursuant with Federal Affordable Housing Standards. The M:OMEBridge Street Project endeavors to addresses crucial issues of housing, development, and the environment while creating a project that expresses our collective moment in history. It is a new millennium, and we as a nation, a state, and a city, are still addressing our urgent housing needs with developer-driven tracts of resource depleting units based on last century's model, when the earth's. entire population measured 16% of its current numbers. Furthermore, we are developing this type of construction as if the equally urgent threat of environmental demise was not a critical issue facing the world today. As a direct response to these pressing issues, the design team has developed a project comprised of responsive, cost-effective "green" units that will save the property owner money throughout the years via low life-cycle costs, without sacrificing the modem conveniences we have all come to appreciate and expect. Components such as livetwork, alternate transportation, and community gardens will allow ultimate lifestyle flexibility and encourage a wider and diverse user group to consider this proposed "neighborhood" as their new home in San Luis Obispo. In addition, this integrated, mixed-use project will become a model for true "carbon-neutral" development, in which an integrated live and work community obviates the reliance on fuel-burning vehicles. This application seeks to entitle and develop a portion of an existing 7.73 acre split- zoned parcel within the city of San Luis Obispo into a new prototype of mixed use development. The proposal to rezone just 2.19 acres of "M" zoned property to R-2 residential while retaining 0.56 acres in the "M" zone, will -.yield a 5.05 acre remainder parcel which will remain in CO/S open space zoning. The existence of the "M"and "O/S" split land use designation of this property, coupled with the physical and developable nature of the 2.67 acre portion of land under consideration, create a viable scenario for this mixed use project to be realized, a project that would bring much needed relief to the housing crisis in San Luis Obispo. This proposal will create a 24 lot Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, creating 27 total new units, with a mix of (8) commercial units, and studio, one, two, three and four bedroom attached and detached homes, with the larger single family houses also containing "granny" units to encourage maximum living options and economic sustainability. Initial financial proformas indicate a doubling of the city's affordable unit requirement could be realized, even without the use of city fee reductions, waivers or incentives. However, by partneririg with the City of San Luis Obispo, we hope to achieve an even higher percentage of affordable units, creating a vibrant, cutting-edge mixed- use project that will set a new standard in design, sustainability and affordability in San Luis Obispo. The WOME/Bridge Street Project - GPA/Rezone/PUD Application _ -7 -13 Attachment 3 project directory The Bridge Street Corporat ion 1130 Garden Street, Suite "A" San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 BSC Board of Directors: 3O5. Bob Crizer, President and CEO Laura Joines-Novotny, Architect Tyler Hanson, Bob Crizer Construction Mark Wilson, People's Self-Help Housing Bob Simmonson, Architect Owner: John & Mary Semon ph: 805.542.9000 215 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Representative: garcia architecture+design ph: 805.783.1880 George Garcia, AIA, Principal-In-Charge Project Team: Tom Di Santo,Architect Bryan Ridley Paul Locke Clint lwanicha Design Team: M:OME ph: 805.748.3815 Laura Joines-Novotny, Architect Tom Di Santo, Architect Phillip Novotny Consultants: Affordable Housing Mark Wilson, People's Self-Help Housing Construction Estimation: Bob Crizer Construction Landscape Consultant: Larry Santoyo Structural Engineering Consultant: Craig Dobbs, PE The M:OME/Bridge Street Project GPA/Rezone/PUD Application . Attachment 3 vicinity map o Vx `% � Fg� O 000 Bwal °0000 wN. 000. ®oQ Q EN F = SOUM SBiEEf- q �yt{J� 'A tj � e vj Opp P° BFGOGE StitEET � � ❑ COMM ❑ WUMBRIDMLLI O a o U' tawRac� project site � a NORTH The WOME/Bridge Street Project GPA/Rezone/PUD Application Attachment 3 assessor's parcel map ------------ ... n I U 004-81 1 V OS M I 1 t .'r K• 1 /ILIJ-Y w lv ■ �, SubJect Property ® 0 �t att i I / �• [1 16 - v ,. I54 - 13EESO -WnMET - SEP s G 999 e • 1. s O NoRoni'.Addtlt&481.154,BkA;Pq.123 ory or SAN LInS 0g(;pp Pfll.LL 10.Bedm mw Phillips Tr,B.A^44wv K Tr.634. Swth Sfreel Jueofim-R.f6 Bk.0%PQ.14 Assessor's Parcel Number: 004-881-024 The M:OME/Bridge Street Project GPA/Rezone/PUD Application 7—/& - Attachment 3 project background The subject property is a 7.73 acre site, located at 215 Bridge Street in the southwest quadrant of the City of San Luis Obispo. It is bordered to the west by the existing Bailey Bridge Building, which is an "M" manufacturing zoned parcel, and to the south by existing open space CO/S zoned lands. The east border is also zoned CO/S Conservation / Open Space, as well as R-2/SP o residential. To the north, one finds Bridge Street, ---- Q with Manufacturing and Commercial Service zoned r = property. Also, Multi- Residential and R-4 zoned property and existing cc::ceptualdraoi.iyonlY .::;c:',!ce -rme.riT residential development is found in the immediate surrounding neighborhood to the northwest of this property. Based on recent city council action of 02/17/04, the current zoning of this parcel is a split-zone of"M" manufacturing and CO/S-5 conservation open space, 5 acre minimum. This is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map, which indicates that the lower, flat portion of the property, roughly around the 17e foot contour, is designated manufacturing, while the steeper portions of the property are designated Conservation/Open Space. In conjunction with entitlement of this proposed mixed use project, the applicants are requesting to rezone approximately 2.19 of the overall 7.73 acres near and below the 175"' foot contour to Residential R-2, with the balance 5+ acres remaining in C/OS-5 open space zoning. The remaining 0.56 acres adjacent to Bridge Street and adjoining commercial properties will remain as"M"zoned property. Also, in order to secure and preserve permanent open space as a part of this project, the applicants are proposing to dedicate approximately 30,000 s.f. of private property as permanently deeded open space lands. Furthermore, the property owner has indicated that an additional permanent open space easement would be available for the balance of the 5+ acre remainder CO/S zoned parcel, should the city deemed this encumbrance necessary for the entitlement request of this project. These open space restrictions and/or dedications will provide secure and permanent open space lands, which-will be held as open space in perpetuity. The net result is that approval of this project will yield more lands designated. as Open Space than there currently exists today, while providing much needed housing to the city of San Luis Obispo. The WOME/Bridge Street Project GPA/Rezone/PUD Application Attachment 3 project description Based on the desired economic affordability and environmental sustainability criteria of the project, the design team proposes the following commercial and residential unit mix scenario. The first eight lots will contain commercial loft-style units over parking, which Will border the east side of the Bridge Street Factory, along the 60' flag. Next, four (4) two- bedroom attached houses border the north edge of the property and are mixed with one (1) studio unit over garage. Two (2) one- _917cp!rmv ch"'nVing nr,,Iy A,4,41 bedroom units are located across the way along the southern edge of the access driveway. Next, six (6) three-bedroom attached and detached units follow along north, east, and southern edges, and are interspersed with two (2) additional studio units. Finally, a (1) single four-bedroom detached unit fits into the curve of the property's southern slope, accompanied by a granny/studio unit over individual detached garages. The design team made a deliberate effort to create a diversity of housing options for the project so as to appeal to the widest possible demographic, which is consistent With the city housing element The actual proposed residential unit mix and density is as follows: Proposed Residential Unit Mix I Density: (8) 1,1100 Commercial loft units = (NIA) (3) Studio units x 0.50 = 1.50 DU (2) One-bedroom units x 0.66 = 1.33 DU (4)Two-bedroom units x 1.00 =4.00 DU (6) Three-bedroom units x 1.50 = 9.00 DU (1) Four-bedroom unit x 2.00 = 2.00 DU (4) Granny units x 0.50 = 2:00 DU Total Proposed Residential Unit Mix = 19.83 dwelling units proposed Proposed R-2 Zoning = 12 units/acre (without density bonus) 2.19 acres x 12 units/acre = 26.28 allowable dwelling units Density Summary = 19.83 <26.28 density o.k. The WOME/Bridge Street Project GPA/Rezone/PUD Application 7A Attachment 3 parking requirements A. Required Project Parking: (8) 1,100 Commercial units x 1.00 sp/300 s.f. = 29.3 spaces required (3) Studio units x 1.00 spaces/unit = 3.0 spaces required (2) One-bedroom units x 1.50 spaces/unit = 3.0 spaces required (4)Two-bedroom units x 2.00 spaces/unit = 8.0 spaces required (6) Three-bedroom units x2.50 spaces/unit = 15.0 spaces requited (1) Four-bedroom unit x 3.00 spaces/unit = 3.0 spaces required (4)Granny units x 1.00 spaces/unit = 3.0 spaces required Additional parking @ 1 per 5 units x 19 units = 4.0 spaces required Sub-Total Project Parking Required = 68.3 spaces required 10% Reduction for Shared Parking 20% Reduction for Mixed Use = 30% reduction allowed Total Project Parking Required = 47.8 spaces required B. Parking Provided: 38 covered owner/guest parking spaces = 38.0 spaces provided 2 handicap-accessible parking spaces = 2.0 spaces provided 8 uncovered tandem owner parking spaces = 8.0 spaces provided 24 guest parking spaces = 24.0 spades provided (P�A Total Project Parking Provided =;7.n spaces provided plus 4 motorcycle parking spaces = 4.0 spaces provided plus 15 bicycle parking spaces = 15.0 spaces provided The project will be providing a minimum of 15 bicycle spaces via "bike benches" scattered throughout the project, to promote cleaner transportatton and provide for altemative local transportation needs of the residence. The WOM.E/Bridge Street Project GPA/Rezone/PUD Application -7- 7o Attachment 3 Exhibit "A" Allowed Commercial Uses Bridge Street Mixed Use Project The following is a list of preferred commercial uses and/or business types that will be allowed for the commercial component, Lots 1-8, of the Bridge Street Mixed Use Project. The commercial uses listed below were compiled from Table 9 of "Allowed Uses By Zone", of the City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance for "M" zoned property, as well as specific, neighborhood-compatible commercial uses preferred for this mixed-use project. These specific commercial uses are encouraged in order to a) preser4 the commercial character of the adjoining commercial uses and land-use designations to the north, east, and west properties, and b) provide an appropriate land-use transition from the existing mixed commercial development along Bridge Street, to a more residential land-use character to the south and east of Bridge.Street. Allowed Commercial Uses (Excerpted From Section 17.22.090, Table 9) Industry, Manufacturing, Processing, Wholesaling Uses ❑ Furniture & Fixture Manufacturing ❑ Industrial Research and Development ❑ Laboratory— Medical, Research &Testing ❑ Manufacturing - Light ❑ Photo & Film Processing ❑ Printing & Publishing ❑ Wholesaling & Distribution Recreation, Education, & Public Assembly Uses ❑ Fitness/ Health Facility Retail Sales Uses ❑ Extended Hour Retail Services — Business, Financial & Professional ❑ Business Support Services ❑ Office -Accessory ❑ Office - Processing ❑ Office— Production &Administrative Services— General ❑ Maintenance Service/Client Site Services ❑ Repair Services (small appliance only, indoor only) Attachnnent 4 RESOLUTION NO. 5410-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND CREEK SETBACK EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 215 BRIDGE STREET TR/ER/GP/R 64-03 (Tract 2560) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 27, 2004, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R 64-03, a request to amend the Hillside Development Limit Line, Amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map to allow a sixteen-lot residential subdivision and an eight-unit commercial condominium within a Planned Development; 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 the City Council that includes adjustment of the hillside development limit line from the 175-foot contour up to the 185-foot contour, amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Manufacturing to Medium-Density Residential, amending the Zoning Map from Manufacturing (M) to Medium-Density Residential with the Planned Development Overlay (R-2), and approving a Preliminary Development Plan and Subdivision as shown within the project exhibits: A. Development Limit Line adjustment findings 1. The amended development limit line location is consistent with hillside planning text policies that are designed to protect scenic vistas and allow adequate distribution of public services such as water sewer and fire protection. 2. The amended location will not significantly alter the aesthetic value of the property, affect sensitive resources or place structures withima hazardous location. . 77 -ai Attachment 4 GP/R/ER/PR 64-03 Bridge Street Project Planning Commission Resolution 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 2 3. The new development limit line allows for the property to be developed consistent with the adjacent neighborhood and allows for the preservation of sensitive hillside areas. 4. The adjustment of the limit line allows housing to be built on a safe and reasonable location as justified by the geotechnical analysis prepared for the project. B. General Plan Map findings 1. Amendment of the General Plan Map from Manufacturing to Medium Density Residential is consistent with the General Plan text policies that encourage the preservation and expansion of existing residential neighborhoods. 2. The size, shape and location of the property is not conducive to a manufacturing land use since the property is separated from other manufacturing areas by a creek and the site is too close to sensitive hillsides and an existing residential neighborhood. 3. A Medium-Density residential land use designation is appropriate for this site since it allows a transition between the existing manufacturing designation and hillside open space. 4. A Medium-Density residential land use is appropriate for the site and compatible with the land use pattern of adjacent properties along Exposition Drive. 5. Allowing the land use amendment will implement the City's Housing Element Policies that encourage sustainable and affordable housing projects. C. Subdivision Map findings 1. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Map for Medium Density Residential because each dwelling has access to a satisfactory private open space area and the development would occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the Medium Density Residential zone. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under- developed site that is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way and is close to the public transit and associated services. 3. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood and there are existing roadways and services available to serve the development in accordance with City standards. 4. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site contains provisions to preserve and protect the creek, and sensitive hillside areas to maintain significant or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish and wildlife. 5. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the development is of a similar scale to surrounding development. Additionally, new construction will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 6. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with Attachment 4 GP/R/ER/TR 64-03 Bridge Street Project Planning Commission Resolution 10-27-04 , 215 Bridge Street Page 3 easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist. 7. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated with this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. D. Planned Development Findings 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the proposed land use is allowed within the applicable primary zoning district if the General Plan Map and Zoning Map is amended as proposed. 2. The project complies_ with all applicable provisions of these Zoning Regulations other than those modified by the PD rezoning. 3. The approved modifications to the development standards of these Zoning Regulations are necessary and appropriate to accommodate the superior design of the proposed project inlcuding its compatibility with adjacent land uses, its successful mitigation of environmental impacts, and its proposed affordable housing features, sustainable building concepts and proposed open space easements. 4. The project will be reviewed by the City's Architectural Review Commission for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines prior to approval. 5. All affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. 6. The location, size, site planning, building design features, and operating characteristics of the project are highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood, and will be compatible with the character of the site, and the land uses and development intended for the surrounding neighborhood by the General Plan. 7. The site is adequate for the project in terms of size, configuration topography, and other applicable features (as conditioned), 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. 8. 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. 9. Tandem parking is a logical parking design solution for some of the units since the tandem parking spaces will be for the exclusive use of the occupants of each unit supplying the tandem parking. E. Creek Setback Exception Findings for replacement clear span bridge 1. The location and design of the new clear span bridge will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation,rest,and movement. n Attachment 4 GP/R/ERfM 64-03 Bridge Street Project Planning Commission Resolution 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 4 2. The exception will not limit the city's design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies. 3. The exception to allow the new bridge will enhance safe vehicular access for the property and allow a circulation plan that complies with the City's flood regulations. 4. The exception will not prevent the implementation of city-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans. 5. 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 if the bridge were not constructed. 6. 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. 7: The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream. 8. Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project; and 9. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. F. Findings to allow a 10% parking,reduction 1. Since the commercial project will be developed as a condominium plan, with attached ownership units sharing a common parking area, a shared parking plan and 10% parking reduction is a logical solution to improve vehicular access and increase site design options. 2. A 10% parking reduction will allow additional space for a vehicle tum-around area and allow development to be shifter.further from the existing creek. 3. A 10% parking reduction will reduce the parking requirement by only three spaces and is therefore not likely to result in off-site parking impacts. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. Aesthetics 1. New construction above the 175-foot contour shall be limited to a 25-foot maximum height limit. 2. Existing willow trees and blackberry brambles at the north boundary of the site shall remain in place and be protected during all phases of site construction. Grading limitations, raised foundations, and careful placement of the structures shall accommodate the existing topography and vegetation. Other trees shall remain on site unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department and the City Arborist for removal. 3. If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare shall be required, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. -c � Attachment 4 GP/R/ERfrR 64-03 Bridge Street Project Planning Commission Resolution 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 5 4. Reflective roofing materials shall not be allowed unless proven that the reflective material will not produce off site glare to neighboring residential properties or the public right of way. 5. Site development shall be restricted to building footprints shown on the development plan as approved by City Council. All areas above the 185-foot contour within the remainder parcel shall be deed restricted with a private open space easement. The easement shall restrict further development of this property and define allowed uses such as passive recreational paths, landscape and drainage maintenance and necessary fire fuel management. The existing residence, garage and driveway, including a 25 foot radius around the existing development shall be exempt from the required deed restriction. 6. The existing blackberry brambles and associate drainage swale shall remain in place and a preservation easement shall be recorded across the proposed lots for these features. The easement shall specify allowed uses and shall not allow grading, construction or removal of vegetation unless necessary for fire fuel management or City approved drainage improvements. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a required setbacks and site dimensions. Compliance with the site plan shall be verified through construction plan. check and site review. A lighting photometric plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department as part of the construction plan check. An examination of installed lighting will be analyzed prior to occupancy of the site. A final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the construction plan check. Installed landscape will be reviewed prior to occupancy release. Air Quality 7. The following mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution associated with grading and construction of the site. These mitigation measures are required at the start and maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: 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 = - Attach,nent 4 GP/R/ER/PR 6"3 Bridge Street Project Planning Commission Resolution 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 6 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 8. All construction activities including grading, vegetation removal, stockpiling, equipment storage etc. shall remain outside of the 20-foot creek setback line at all times unless an exception for,such construction has been approved by the Community Development Department. The creek setback line shall be established by the City's Natural Resource Manager and marked in the field. The setback area shall be fenced with orange construction fencing, and shall be in place prior to the beginning of construction and throughout the duration of construction. 9. Replacement of the bridge and associated improvements crossing the creek shall require permits from the Department of Fish and Game unless otherwise exempted from such review. The bridge design shall be a clear-span bridge as provided in the conceptual plans. 10. Paved vehicular parking areas shall not be allowed within the creek setback area. Monitoring Program: Prior to release of City construction permits, the riparian areas shall be inspected for fencing and erosion control protection. A separate permit shall be secured by the Department of Fish and Game and other applicable agencies prior to issuance of a City construction permit that allows work within or over the creek area. Cultural Resources 11. During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. .12. Prior to removing or demolishing the existing residence at the property, all provisions of the City's Building Demolition and Relocation codes shall be utilized. 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. c� Attachment 4 GP/R/ERfM 64-03 Bridge Street Project Planning Commission.Resolution 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 7 Geology and Soils 13. The recommendations of the engineering geotechnical report prepared by GSI Soils on September 9, 2004 shall be incorporated into the project unless superior design alternatives are approved by the City Public Works Director subject to approval of a State registered geotechnical engineer. Monitoring Program: The engineering geotechnical report recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans to be submitted for construction permits. The applicable construction methods shall be incorporated into the final project and inspected as part of the building inspection process during construction. Hydrology and Water Quality 14. 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. 15.Driveways, parking areas or private streets shall be constructed of pervious materials such as turf block to enhance on-site water percolation.. 16. Commercial structures on sites 1-8 shall be designed so as not to impede floodwaters through the use of open carports or other design features that will not block potential floodwaters. 17. All development shall comply with the City's latest edition of the Flood Management Prevention Guidelines. Monitoring Program: Construction.plans,including a grading and drainage plan, shall reflect direction of drainage and identify any proposed detention or retention. Pervious paving materials (where used) shall be shown on the construction plans. Drainage systems and applicable installations shall be incorporated into the site prior to final inspection. Noise 18. The south and east elevation of the commercial structure nearest the residential property shall have wall construction with an S.T.0 (Sound Transmission Class) rating of 30 greater. As an example; stucco exterior 2" x 6" stud walls with minimum R-13 batt insulation and two layers of'h" gypsum board screwed to resilient strips on the interior will provide an STC rating of 30 or greater. All south and east facing windows of this commercial structure shall incorporate operable or sealed glazing assemblies that have an STC rating equal or greater than 30. 19. Common acoustic leaks, such as electrical outlets, pipes, vents, ducts, flues and other breaks in the integrity of the wall, ceiling or roof construction on the east side of the commercial building nearest the residential property line and the residential unit on lot 2 shall receive special attention during construction. All construction openings and joints on the walls on the east side of the site shall be insulated, sealed and caulked with a resilient, non-hardening caulking material. All such openings and joints shall be airtight to maintain sound isolation, Attachment 4 GP/R/ER/rR 64-03 Bridge Street Project Planning Commission Resolution 10-27-04 .215 Bridge Street Page 8 20. For the residential unit on lot 2, the soffit vents, eave vents, dormer vents and other wall and roof penetrations shall be located on the walls and roofs facing south and east away from commercial uses unless such penetrations have an STC rating of 30 or greater. Wall and window construction of the unit on lot 2 shall be designed to meet or exceed an STC rating of 30 or greater. Monitoring Program: A noise disclosure shall be recorded on the deeds of subject properties, along with the Final Subdivision Map, prior to final inspection of the construction. Plans for sound attenuation, shall be provided on the final construction drawings. All such improvements shall be completed prior to final inspection. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application ER/TR/GP/R 64-03, 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 development plan to the Community Development Director consistent with Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.62.060. 2. An affordable housing agreement consistent with the draft affordable housing proposal shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to proceeding to the Architectural Review Commission, following approval of the applicable entitlements by the City Council. 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 by the City Council. 4. The project shall be developed with sustainable construction features as identified (or comparable to) exhibits and testimony provided by the applicant. These features include, energy and water conservation methods, attention to preservation of native site conditions, and recyclable construction materials. 5. At least 50% of the common driveway and private outdoor driveway areas shall be designed with pervious surfaces such as turf block or a similar pervious surface to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the City Public Works division. 6. A common address sign shall be placed at the driveway intersection with Bridge Street. Address sign shall list all unit addresses and shall be reviewed with architectural plans for consistency with the proposed subdivision and the existing neighborhood. Attad inent 4 GP/R/ERfM 64-03 Bridge Street Project Planning Commission.Resolution 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 9 7. No parking or vehicular access for commercial tenants or customers shall be allowed within the residential area. A sign shall be posted at the south end of the commercial condominium to discourage commercial traffic from entering the residential area. 8. No parking, paving, or site construction shall be allowed within the creek setback unless approved as part of the planned development as shown on the development plan. 9. A turn-around space, consistent with the required dimensions as shown within the City's Parking and Driveway standards shall be provided at the south end of the commercial property to allow vehicles to turn around and leave the site in a forward manner without entering the residential area. 10. The subdivider shall dedicate a public easement to allow pedestrian access through the site to a pathway that links to City Open Space property. 11.The subdivider shall dedicate an easement for all property above and south of the 185- foot contour, to perpetually preserve the property as private open space. The easement shall be written to prohibit grading, construction and land disturbance other than pedestrian pathways or native landscape. Erosion control devices and wildland fire vegetation control may be allowed within the open 1pace easement. 12. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement to preserve the blackberry brambles and associated drainage swale north of lots 2 through 12. The easement shall prevent vegetation removal, grading, landscaping, and other site disturbance. 13. All site construction shall be limited to the footprints of the homesites shown on the approved final development plan. Additional site construction or changes to the site configuration shall be subject to review and approval of an amendment to the Planned Development. 14. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 15. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 16. The demolition of the existing residence shall be subject to the City's demolition and building relocation code and may be subject to a 90-day newspaper advertisement prior to demolition or removal. Conditions and code requirements from other departments: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not -7_�C ` Attachment 4 GP/R/ERfM 64-03 Bridge Street Project Planning Commission Resolution 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 10 intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. Public Right-of-way 1. Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications (curbs, gutters & 2m sidewalks, full width street pavement, signing, striping, barricades, street lights, etc.). 2. A public improvement plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval. All grades, layout, staking and cut- sheets necessary for the construction of street paving and frontage improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the Bridge Street frontage..Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the Bridge Street frontage. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 5. All proposed private streets shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and pavement design shall be based on a Traffic Index of 6.5. Water,Sewer&Utilities 6. The proposed on-site sewer main and water services will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 7. Final grades and alignments of all water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 8. If a public water main is approved by the Utilities Department, the subdivider shall dedicate an easement for a public water system over all private streets or driveways, parking areas (including planters and raised medians) and common areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. If alternative paving materials (eg pavers, grass-crete ,etc) are used for the private street surfacing, the City will restore any water line repair with temporary asphalt pavement. It shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association to restore the private street to the desired condition. 9. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public street frontage(sy;to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. '3C Attad hent 4 GP/R/EPJM 64-03 Bridge Street Project Planning Commission Resolution 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page I I 10. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. Utilities to the all lots shall be underground. 11. The subdivider shall provide individual electrical, phone, television, natural gas, water service, and sewer connections to the approval of the affected utility companies and the Public Works Director. Grading& Drainage 12.Final analysis and design of stormwater facilities shall be consistent with the Drainage Design Manual section of.the City's Waterways Management Plan including but not limited to the following provisions: a. Post construction stormwater runoff rates shall not exceed the predevelopment runoff rates for the 2, 10 and 100 year 24-hour storm events. b. All proposed detention basin and drainage improvements, except those within a public street, shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and homeowners' association. c. All construction within the 100- year FEMA floodplain shall meet the following requirements per the Waterways Management Plan: 1. There shall be no significant net increase in up-stream or downstream floodwater surface elevations for the 100-year flood at General Plan build- out as a result of changes in floodplain configuration and building construction. A significant threshold of a 64. mm (2.5 in) increase in floodwater surface elevations or 0.1 m/s (0.3 f/s) increase in stream velocities shall be used. This shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and based on a final hydraulic analysis pursuant to the Drainage Design Manual. 2. There shall be no significant net decrease in floodplain storage volume as a result of a new development or redevelopment projects. This can be achieved by a zero-net fill grading plan, balancing all fill placed on the 100-year floodplain with cut taken from other portions of the floodplain within the project area of the application, or with cut exported off site. Specifically, all fill placed in a floodplain shall be balanced with an equal amount of soil material removal (cut) and shall not decrease floodplain storage capacity at any stage of a flood(2, 10, 50, or 100-year event). 3. All bridging, culverting and modifications to the existing creek channels must be in with the City's Waterways Management—Drainage Design Manual.(specifically regarding clear spanning of creeks, etc.) and . 7-3� . Attadhment 4 GP/R/ER/TR 64-03 Bridge Street Project Planning Commission Resolution 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 12 be approved by the Public Works Director, Army Corp of Engineers, and Fish &Game. 4. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, the City's Natural Resources Manager and the Dept. of Fish & Game. 5. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 13. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of one or more acre. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 14. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the SWRCB shall be included in the PIP set. The WDID Number issued by the SWRCB shall be noted on all plans that involve land disturbing activities. Mapping Requirements 15.The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor in accordance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act, the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision City's Regulations. 16.The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991.35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" - meters) for direct import into the Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier (model space in real world coordinates, NAD 83 - m). If you have any questions regarding format,please call prior to submitting electronic data. 17. The final map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 18. Electronic files and stamped and signed drawings shall be submitted for all_public improvement plans prior to map recordation or commencing with improvements, Attad�,gent 4 GP/R/ER/rR 64-03 Bridge Street Project Planning Commission Resolution 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 13 whichever occurs first. Submittal documents shall include the AutoCAD compatible drawing files and any associated plot files along with one original, stamped and signed, ink on mylar set of plans. 19. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans and record drawings, compatible with AutoCAD for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, in accordance with the City's Engineering Standards, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director: 20. The map shall be recorded prior to occupancy of any of the units. Otherwise, the map shall be processed as a condo conversion per Municipal Code Chapter 17.82. Utilities 21. It is necessary to be certain that all City facilities fall within proposed easements or property deeded to the City. The on-site water and sewer systems shall be privately owned and maintained. The on-site water and sewer mains shall be labeled on the plans as "Private". The existing single family residence located on the remainder parcel shall be included in the joint ownership and maintenance of the private on-site water and sewer lines. The joint ownership and maintenance responsibilities of all the owners shall be clearly described and explained in the homeowners' association agreement, bylaws, and/or CC&R's. 22.The tentative map shows a 6" water main serving the private on-site fire hydrants, but the location of the backflow preventer is not indicated. The backflow device shall be located adjacent to the private driveway, just outside the public right-of-way. The backflow device shall include a detector meter on the bypass, in accordance with City Standard 6420. The backflow configuration may include one or more fire department connections, as directed by the fire department. 23. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a per residential unit basis. 24. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well or other water source not under City control. Such water systems will be allowed to be used only on the property containing the system, and no part of such a system will be allowed to cross over any property line. All backflow preventers shall be approved by the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research. The project shall be coordinated with the County Cross-Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz,. who can be reached at 781-5567. Attac�rnent 4 GP/R/ERrFR 64-03 Bridge Street Project Planning Commission Resolution 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 14 25. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. 26. The project presents an opportunity to evaluate and upgrade the sewer lateral serving the existing residence on the remainder parcel, if needed. Most plumbers have the ability to produce a videotape of the inside of the sewer lateral. The Utilities Department can assist in reviewing the video and making recommendations for repair or replacement, as appropriate. As stated previously, the owner of the existing residence on the remainder parcel shall be included in the joint ownership and maintenance agreement, in order to tie into the proposed private sewer main running through the project. Street Trees 17. Removal of(1) one pine tree approved with the replanting of several unique and common landscape trees per. proposed landscape plan. All other existing trees to remain with a tree protection plan developed for creek and native trees to the satisfaction of the city arborist. One street tree required per 35 lineal feet of street frontage or any part thereof. 18. Street tree selection may need to be revised considering available space and planted to city standards. Natural Resources Manager 19. Slopes consist of serpentine rocks, likely to contain rare or threatened plant species. Rock outcrop on south side of project should be protected, and encroachments onto hillside should be kept to a minimum, 20. Drainage on north side of access to the existing house on the hillside is not a creek.but is good quality wildlife habitat. Plan apparently calls for protecting this feature. Natural Resources staff supports such protection. Transportation 21. The final development plan shall provide a plan showing locations and dimensions of on site parking also noting covered vs. uncovered. 22. The final development plan shall describe and detail the bike bench concept. Attachi nent 4 GP/R/ERaR 64-03 Bridge Street Project Planning Commission Resolution 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 15 On motion by Commissioner Christianson, seconded by Commissioner Osborne and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Caruso, Boswell, and Miller NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: Loh and Aiken The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted October 27,.2004. onal Whisenan , Secretary Planning Commission 7-35 H hmen - SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 5, 2003 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 5, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh, James Caruso, Michael Boswell, Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson Orval Osborne Absent: None Staff: Associate Planners Phil Dunsmore and Michael Codron, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding. Lane, expressed concerns regarding development of the R-1 zone and disapproval of the proposed Sunny Acres project. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 215 Bridge Street. GPA, PD, TR and ER 64-03: Request to allow General Plan amendment and Zone Reclassification for a housing development, including a tentative tract map for a 20-lot residential planned development subdivision, and Environmental Review; Bridge Street Corporation, applicant. (Phil Dunmore) Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a resolution amending the General Plan Map for a 12,000 square foot portion of the site from Conservation/Open Space to Medium-Density Residential; adjust the hillside development limit line from the 175-foot contour to the 185-foot contour; approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning on the property from C/OS-5 to R-2-PD and M-PD; and adopt a resolution approving a 22-lot residential planned development with an affordable housing component and sustainable building features. = Planning Commission Mir'��� A'.tAC�tit1@11t S November 5, 2003 Page 2 Planner Dunsmore noted the Commission conceptually reviewed this project on September 10, 2003, took public testimony and gave direction to the applicant. The applicant is now presenting the project with that direction. He gave a detailed explanation of the various components of the proposal. Commr. Cooper asked if the applicant is prepared to relinquish lots 1-8, which are the work-live units. Planner Dunsmore responded the proposal would be to utilize lots 1-4 as a work-live component with the manufacturing zoning and lots 5-8 would have residential zoning similar to the rest of the hillside. . Commr. Cooper questioned the location of the new development limit line and asked if lots 20 and 21 were the two lots that were in the C/OS zone. He noted that it appears the property to become permanent open space will more than make up for lots 20 and 21, resulting in no net loss of Conservation/Open Space. Planner Dunsmore responded yes. He also noted the applicant had found there was an additional acre that reverted to open space under an easement over what is actually there now, making that a gain in land that would be restricted. Commr. Loh expressed concern with the drainage, and noted that the houses on lots 20 and 21 are proposed directly over an existing swale. She referred to the environmental document, which does not address this issue. Deputy Director Whisenand noted that the previous proposal was to go from the 175- foot contour to the 195-foot contour. Since then, the applicant amended their application to go to 185-feet. He explained they are also proposing areas that were currently shown for development with conservation easements, so there will be a no net loss of open space. Although the development limit line will be moved up to the edge of the slope, additional open space._areas will be created which will compensate for that. George Garcia, applicant's representative, noted they had obtained input from ECOSLO and the Sierra Club, and the issue of open space was an area of concern. He noted that these groups support the project if a no-net loss of open space can be achieved. The units are staggered for maximum exposure for solar gain, with much south facing glazing.' He noted that all units will contain both covered and uncovered parking, noting the project is over-parked by one space, according to City standards. He also noted that 500% more bicycle parking is being provided to encourage use of alternative transportation. He mentioned the mix of studio units above two-car garages, noting the architecture responds directly to the sustainable functions of the buildings. Mr. Garcia felt that discussion on development limit lines and its relation to contour is inappropriate. He commented that it had been said that raising the development limit line would set a precedent, and noted they cannot go above the 175-foot contour. However, the majority of Meadow Park and Woodbridge is not only above the 175-foot contour, _but above the 195-foot contour. Therefore, he asked that neighborhood development pattems be followed. 'He pointed out the issue of the viewshed and-what the project will look like from the Meadow Park area. He ekplained how required open -7-37 Planning Commission Mir- ktachment 5 November 5,2003 Page 3 space would be provided. He noted the areas of deed-restricted permanent open space easements and explained that the open space parcel is privately held not City open space. However, deed restrictions will dictate that no development will occur on these parcels. He also noted an additional area the applicant is willing to dedicate as permanent easement open space, which is slightly less than one acre, and is logically located in and around the units. Tom Dissanto, Garcia Architects, spoke to the issue of environmental demise. He noted it is important to think about sustainability in architecture, as well as affordability. He briefly discussed the following issues and how they are dealing with sustainability: 1) A water capture system which will capture the water that falls onto the property in cistems that will recharge the water table and/or irrigate the landscaping; 2) Natural day lighting; the inverted gable that helps catch the water opens up to the sun giving natural daylight, which reduces the need for power; 3) Non-toxic interior materials, using materials that do not off gas or have VOC's or HFC's; 4) Cool roofs which are reflective roofs that reduce the heating into the homes eliminating the thermal island heat effect and eeducing the overall cooling load; 5) Gray water systems which recycle bath and laundry water for irrigation; 6) Thermal mass which is obtained through concrete floors that are left exposed, extra drywall, and concrete countertops, both of which retain the heat from the sun and re-radiate it throughout the day and allows more glazing on the south;7) Passive solar heating and orientation of all buildings to south or 15 degrees of south in either direction to maximize the use of the sun, thereby reducing energy costs; 8) Outdoor rooms where the livability of the house can be brought outdoors, using natural sun cycles. 9) Non-toxic materials on the outside; 10) Active roof systems, using the sun to create electricity as well as solar water heaters; 11) Skin and bone systems which is a steel structure with a malleable skin that changes with the climate. Mr. Dissanto described the sound attenuation systems that are being provided on the work-live units. Some site features he illustrated include 1) replacing the existing asphalt driveway with permeable grasscrete that is strong enough to support Fire Department vehicles while allowing percolation for vegetative recovery and base flow recharge. 2) Creek bank preservation with large setbacks, 3) Edible landscaping corridor which reduces reliance on gas powered vehicles and encourages neighborhood participation; 4) site restoration involving remediation of the existing brambles creating a wildlife corridor from open space; 5) electric car sharing where neighborhood vehicles would be provided for the community; 6) pedestrian/bike path to the open space via a decomposed granite path; 7) communal gardens; 8) vegetated contour swales which will slow the water flow down, working it throughout the site, with runoff going to the next plateau and using French and mirror drains at landscape walls to keep the water away from the buildings; 9) Chevron-shaped rock gabion walls will help ameliorate the condition at the start of the culvert, reducing erosion and prohibiting the loss of soil while irrigating the orchards; 10) water recycling; 11) visual congruity to open space, and through CC&R's will prohibit the use of fences, poodle runs, etc.; 12) reduced site density to ensure solar access for all units; 13) Distinction between exclusive and non- exclusive use by means of CC&R's; 14) Bicycle parking which includes 35 bicycle parking spaces to encourage alternate transportation. George Garcia spoke on,the issue of drainage. He noted that for units 1-8,near_ the . creeek, they propose carports that are open on all sides in the event of a 100-year Planning Commission Mini /4:t1C{1fY1@ 5November 5,2003 Page 4 flood, so that water will pass through 50% of the building. He also noted the combination of solids and voids makes for an interesting architectural design. Mr. Garcia noted a drainage analysis prepared by his civil engineer required them to mitigate about 3,500 cubic feet of runoff during a 100-year storm event. This can be accomplished with a surface basin or an underground basin. In addition to a surface basin, a secondary containment basin would serve a 200% increase in the capacity. They also propose to use a water harvesting system that takes the water from the site through the drainage swales and around the buildings through contour swales. The water contained in the water harvesting system will be used for irrigation and reuse. It was clarified that the rock gabion walls are designed as "mini basins" to retain water, retard water, recharge the groundwater and once saturated, it will flow to the next one, ' and the next one through micro-infiltration, migrating through swales around the buildings as it reaches its final destination at the creek. Mr. Garcia explained that an Affordable Housing Agreement has been prepared and the project meets the minimum 5% affordable housing via physical construction no in-lieu fees, noting they intend to build up to 50% of these units (1-12) and sell them as affordable, and will meet or exceed all City requirements for a planned unit development. He reiterated the lots would be deed restricted as long-term affordability with a 30-year minimum, with owner-occupancy requirements. Commr. Boswell questioned if lots 1-4 are manufacturing work-live units limited to a maximum of 1,000 square feet of floor area, and if so, do they meet the maximum requirement that 30% of the floor area shall be utilized as living space. He also felt the definition states the intent is to support some sort of business operation which is the primary use and thus would presumably dictate the design of the unit, with the ancillary use for residential. He also questioned what uses would be allowable, such as a small retail shop. George Garcia responded that they are requesting the entire property be zoned R-2, mainly for the affordability aspect. If residential units are built on M-zoned property, the bank has indicated it will be difficult to obtain financing. In addition, the affordability will no longer be possible due to commercial lending at commercial rates for those four units. He noted that live-work units in the R-2 zone could be sold as affordable units. Deputy Director Whisenand clarified the following definitions: Live-Work is not allowed in the R-2 zone or the M zone. The M zone would allow Work-Live units, which is what staff is recommending for lots 1-4. He clarified that that Zoning Regulations regulate the uses allowed in these zones. Commr. Loh agreed with staff's recommendation regarding the Work-Live units. Deputy Director Whisenand clarified that staff's recommendation is not the applicant's preference in that they would prefer residential zoning for units 1-4. However, because of input received from previous meetings regarding commercial and industrial activities in the area, staff felt it would be a better fit and a good transition between the residential in the:hillside area and the commercial area that exists on Bridge Street: Planning Commission Min- November 5,2003 Attachment 5 Page 5 Commr. Aiken expressed concern with the grasscrete being considered a permeable surface, especially under masonry products because by the time there is an adequate base with compaction under the grasscrete to support large vehicles, it is virtually impermeable at that point. George Garcia responded that the product they are proposing is a proprietary product that uses extruded and recycled plastic that is a high-strength density; under that is a special mix of soil that contains granular fill of decomposed granite as well as plantable soil. The combination of that specific designed soil will not compact in such a way that water can permeate down. He agreed that it is somewhat different from usual grasscrete or turf pavers where a certain amount of compaction is required. However, if this product is determined to be impractical, the drainage calcUlations will remain valid. Commr. Aiken then expressed concern over the pedestrian/bike path, its routing, and potential conflict with Exposition Park neighbors. Mr. Garcia explained that the path is intended to protect the residents of the Woodbridge area in that it is intended to be used only by the inhabitants of the new subdivision to access the open space on the south side hills. It is not intended as a linkage, a trail, or path to Woodbridge Street. He also noted the units will be sold in a graded lottery system, which he described. The number of vehicles will have a weighted value in the lottery. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Helene Finger, 473 Woodbridge Street, spoke to the discrepancy between the General Plan Land Use Map and the City's Zoning Map. She felt staff has incorrectly identified the reasoning for this discrepancy as a result of a 1981 rezone request. She referred to a staff report prepared for a June 28, 1995 meeting where this entire parcel was identified as Conservation/Open Space, both in zoning and land use designation. She felt the change to the development limit line was misinterpreted to a change in the land use designation and it was the intent of staff at that time for the entire parcel to remain open space (C/OS-5). Planner Dunsmore responded that the report being referred to was for a request to adjust the development limit line to the 175-foot contour; it was not an application to amend the General Plan or Zoning maps. It discussed the zoning as being open space, as it currently is, but did not discuss the General Plan as being open space. The majority of the parcel has an Open Space designation and the property below the 175- foot contour is Manufacturing. Peter Brown, 427 Lawrence Drive, felt this project is an astounding project with a tremendous level of quality, detail and design. Given the setting, he felt this is an appropriate location for this type of a project. Russy Parvin' landscape architect, supported the project and hoped to see other similar projects built in the city. �—`rc) Planning Commission Minu' A+taCiimetlt rJ November 5,2003 Page 6 Sonner Saru, Trustee for ECOSLO, expressed support for the project. She felt this project could serve as a model for future development. It creates affordable housing and is a comprehensive, well-designed project using truly sustainable practices. She felt the design is unique and creative, and helps preserve the environment. She noted ECOSLO's concern that there be no net loss of open space and yet have a project that incorporates the principals of sustainability, provides affordable housing, and protects the environment. She asked that the Commission support the project. Laurent Bernard, 3222 Via Ensualo, Atascadero, strongly supported the project. He felt the most attractive points of this project are sustainability and affordability, and noted that families are moving out of the city because they cannot afford to live here. He presented several letters from other concerned citizens supporting the project. Joe Gilpen, 1334 Palm Street, stated this project has excellent potential that is adding new units to the city, is within walking and biking distance to the downtown, and will have electric cars that can be used for errands. Reducing the need for travel is a key issue that this project addresses, as well as being ecologically sustainable. Minka Prinz, supported the project because of its uniquely progressive blend of sustainability and affordability, with emphasis on affordability. Melanie Matina, 314 Corrida Drive, expressed her concerns with parking. She supported the idea of an electric car, but did not feel it will accommodate the needs of that community, and that vehicle usage will remain high. She asked where guest parking would be accommodated. She also was concemed with secondary units as affordable units in that they will most likely be used as rentals, as well as people renting out rooms in these homes, and questioned how this would be enforced. Larry Allen, (Director of the APCD), 2436 Cima Court, felt this is a dream project, from an air quality perspective because it is consistent with all land use recommendations in the Clean Air Plan, provides compact, medium-density development which increases the viability of all types of altemative transportation, and has a bus stop nearby. He was impressed with the active solar design that reduces the impact on the electricity grid. He felt the project supports the Housing Element with affordable housing. He supported the property being zoned R-2, as requested by the applicant, and asked that the project be approved. Larry Santoyo, consultant for Garcia Architects, had initial concerns with drainage, but felt the issues have been adequately addressed, including capillary action. Derek Senn, real estate agent, expressed support for the project. He acknowledged that it is difficult, if not impossible to get conventional residential financing in the M zone, which could be a problem for someone looking for affordable housing; commercially- zoned properties have a higher interest rate and require 20-25% down payment. He felt this is a fantastic project and was impressed with all that the applicant has agreed to put into the project, and should be commended for it. Dan Collell, SLO resident, felt this is a fantastic project and hoped the planners will be as progressive in thinking and looking at new altematives as the architects are. 7� � Planning Commission Mr November 5,2003 _: ' A+tachment 5 Page 7 Drew Lynch, SLO resident; said she cannot afford a home in San Luis Obispo, but this project is very exciting with the affordability component. She was impressed with the community aspect of the development, and encouraged the Commission to support the project. (Name inaudible) supported the water harvest system behind her house because of flooding problems that occur every year. She noted that affordable housing is essential and wondered why apartments cannot be added to the top on the existing strip malls. She also noted concerns with lack of disabled access to the homes and that to get to the first living level requires climbing stairs. She noted other areas of concern as parking, sewers, and purchase and maintenance of the electric vehicles. Jody Bennett, SLO resident and ECOSLO board member, endorsed the project and its sustainability aspects and water harvesting features. Willie Zilkie, 262 Woodbidge Street, expressed confusion as to whether or not the property is open space. She also noted existing parking problems on Bridge Street and wondered if overflow parking from the proposed community will go onto Bridge Street or Woodbridge Street making use of the proposed open space pathway. Mark Wilson, 2103 Cypress Street, supported the project because of its environmental and affordability aspects. He felt it is a rare opportunity when a developer can propose this type of project without a financial contribution from the city. He also felt the approval should include total R-2 zoning. Commr. Cooper interjected that the project could not be approved if the entire site were zoned R-2 because Work-Live or Live-Work units are not allowed in any residential zone. Planner Dunsmore noted that the applicant would prefer the entire site be zoned R-2, but staff is recommending the Work-Live option. Phillip Novotney, 2557 Greta Street, supported the project with a complete R-2 zoning, noting the City desperately needs affordable housing. John Cutter, 557 Buchon Street, expressed his excitement with this project and its sustainability, infill, and access to town. He felt this project will be an example for the entire State and encouraged the Commission to approve it. Lori Atwater, 1351 Oceanaire Drive, felt approving this project will help transform the building industry in this community. It will be a source of education to contractors, not only in the housing industry but the commercial industry because the technology involved is appropriate for housing, industrial and commercial buildings, and churches. She asked the Commission to help this project go forward. Gina Sindrich, Exposition Court, expressed concerns with parking, noting it is currently impossible to find available parking on Bridge Street. She felt the burden of the overflow parking would go to the already impacted Exposition, Corrida and Woodbridge Planning Commission Min Attachment 5 November 5, 2003 _ Page 8 Streets. She also noted concerns with drainage and the potential creek flooding. She felt the goals of the project are admirable, however, did not support the location of it. Kay Webster, 2297 Exposition Drive, expressed a number of concerns, including parking, noise and increased traffic generated from the Work-Live units, and delivery trucks and fork lift usage and lack of turn-around. Eric Meyer, 1241 Pismo Street, felt it takes guts to build affordable housing in San Luis Obispo, and supported this "poster quality" project with all R-2 zoning. Damon Noler, 878 Upham Street, felt there couldn't be a more sensitive project that can exhibit what can be done in San Luis Obispo as far as infill and affordable housing to meet the growth needs of the future. He strongly supported the project. Bob Zilkie, 362 Woodbridge Street, expressed concerns with flooding and the water that will come down from the canyon. He noted that a 1997 storm caused water to come down that hill and over the curb across the street. He also noted existing parking problems, and felt this project will further impact the parking situation. Dodie Williams, 438 Woodbridge Street, presented a photograph of Bridge Street, visible to Higuera Street, illustrating the lack of available parking. She noted the parking lot for the Westwind Center is also full, and asked that the parking issue, specifically for the granny units and guest parking, be addressed. She felt the project has merit, but felt it is a social experiment. She noted that, according to the City's Utilities Department, on-site sewer systems are allowed because the street system within the subdivision is substandard and the City cannot get their utility vehicles in there, so homeowners' associations maintain the sewer system that connects to the City's system. She expressed concern with the cost for maintenance of the edible vegetation proposed, and felt the electric vehicles should be a requirement if the project is approved, and finally noted the work-live units could create immediate noise issues and employee parking problems. She submitted a petition from neighborhood residents expressing the same concerns. Deputy Director Whisenand clarified that a parking calculation has been provided, and compliance with the City's Parking Regulations is being met. Calculations included all the units including the secondary dwelling units, and provided guest parking to City standards. He noted the project is one space over the requirement. Bob Kriser, President of the Corporation developing this project, explained this is a non- profit corporation that has no interest in making money on this project. They are committed to providing every possible affordable unit that they can, and that they have a social responsibility to give something back. He reiterated that they have not asked for work-live units, but for R-2 zoning, and felt it is imperative to the project. He felt the Work-Live will create additional efforts to provide affordable housing. Mr. Kiser clarified that you cannot have an affordable rental housing unit and those units will be deed- restricted against renters. He asked the Commission to step outside the box and support this project. ��q, Planning Commission Mie, Attachment 5 November 5, 2003 .' Page 9 Rick Hamlin, Baily Bridge Partner, submitted two letters for the record. He noted the importance of the compatibility with manufacturing nearby, and asked that it be thoroughly analyzed and a solution obtained before going forward with this project. He felt units 1-8 are particularly vulnerable. Lucy Silva, Atascadero resident, supported the project and the affordable units. Mary Jenny, 2282 Exposition Drive, felt the project is a wonderful project, but had concerns with the location. She hoped that the drainage channel in Meadow Park that causes the flooding in the area would be cleaned out, and noted her concern with parking. She suggested a traffic signal on South Street to mitigate potential traffic impacts. Troy Finger, SLO resident, felt that at the conceptual review of the project, staff was told this project would only develop a minor amount of open space, which he felt is incorrect. It was his opinion that every square foot of this development (2.67 acres) is on open space and is not to be developed, according to the 1995 City staff report GP 57-95 and the accompanying map that shows the property as open space. He felt this would result in a net loss of open space and requested the Commission postpone a decision at this meeting until an accurate description of this development and its impacts to the City can be made and reviewed. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Christianson, agreed that this may be an experiment, but one that must be made for the economic health and future of the City. She noted that parking is a problem in this city, but does not expect this project to fix it. She reiterated that the General Plan map indicates this property as manufacturing and open space, not all open space and the City is not loosing 2.5 acres of open space. She appreciated the applicants willingness to dedicate permanent open space easements, and noted her main concern is to preserve affordability of this project. Commr. Christianson moved the Resolution as presented by staff, with the change that the zoning be changed to R-2 and not include a manufacturing portion, and to ensure lanquage is included with strong disclosures that there is a manufacturing use occurring at the flagpole area. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Commr. Loh applauded the sustainability of the project. She noted the need for housing, and suggested the applicant request additional units. She felt the project is much needed in the city with a lower than moderate cost, and supported the project. Commr Caruso asked for an amendment to the motion, to change the language in the Affordable Housing. Agreement, as noted in Condition 3. to delete the words in the moderate income category "up to" so it reads " . . . the apolicant-intends to sell 50% of the total units built . . ." and amend Mitigation Measure 18 to read: "A maximum potential noise disclosure shall be. recorded on the deeds for lots- 1-8. The maximum potential noise disclosure shall inform future tenants of lots-1-8 of the adiacent ��� . Planning Commission Mi- A;taChment 5 November 5, 2003 Page 10 manufacturing uses and potential noise traffic dust vibration and other emissions exposure." The motion maker and seconder accepted the amendments. Commr. Boswell said he could support the motion with the amendments, however he did not feel this was the ideal location for this kind of development project. He noted that there will probably never be an ideal project or location for infill or contiguous urban development, but wondered if the City can deal with the particular constraints associated with this project. He felt intrusion into the flood zone has been adequately addressed, and felt the City needs a project like this one. Commr. Aiken noted a major concern with inserting a residential zone between two manufacturing zones, and sandwiching eight units so close to the existing and potential manufacturing uses, and therefore could not support the project. He suggested that if the Commission supports the project, Section E of the Resolution relating to Work-Live Unit Findings should be deleted. He also suggested changing Mitigation Measure 47 under Transportation from a question to a definite condition by removing the second sentence. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Cooper, Loh. Christianson, and Osborne NOES: Commr. Aiken ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6:1 vote. Chairperson clarified to the audience that this is a recommendation to the City Council, who will take the final action on the project. 2. 225 North Chorro Street. TA, MS and ER 76-03 (SLO 03-0193): Request to amend the Subdivision Regulations to provide for lot size exceptions for common interest subdivisions, request to subdivide one existing lot into four lots and request for reduced side yard setbacks, including Environmental Review of project with 16 new apartments; R-4 zone; D.A. Fetyko, applicant. (Continued from August 27, 2003.) (Michael Codron) Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report recommending the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed subdivision, text amendment, Mitigated Negative Declaration, setback exceptions and affordable housing incentives, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. He explained the request is create four lots from one lot, and physical development of the property would include 16 apartments in four separate buildings. Four of the 16 apartments will be affordable to low- and moderate-income households, and the project also includes an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to allow common interest developments to have lots of any size or shape. Carol Florence, project planner, noted this revised project has benefited greatly from a two-month collaborative effort with the CHC, ARC and previous hearing by the Planning Commission, and asked the Commission to recommend approval of the project, as recommended by staff. C Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#1 BY: Philip Dunsmore,t Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: October 27, 2004 Pawipe- Foi- FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director- Development Review f R FILE NUMBER: GP/R/ER/TR 64-03 PROJECT ADDRESS: 215 Bridge Street SUBJECT: Continued review of a request to amend the General Plan, adjust the development limit line and rezone the property at 215 Bridge Street to accommodate a planned development that will include sixteen residential sites and an eight-unit commercial condominium project. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution which recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation from Services and Manufacturing to Medium-Density Residential (for a portion of the site) and adjust the hillside development limit line from the 175-foot contour to the 185-foot contour and approving a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 64-03). 2. Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning on the subject property below the 185-foot elevation contour from Manufacturing and Conservation Open Space to Medium Density Residential Planned Development and Manufacturing with a Planned Development Overlay (R-2-PD and M-PD). 3. Adopt a resolution approving a subdivision with sixteen residential lots and a remainder parcel, and a commercial condominium with eight commercial airspace units, including a creek setback exception to allow the replacement of the vehicular bridge with a clear span design. BACKGROUND Situation The Planning Commission reviewed the revised project submittal on June 23, 2004 and voted 6-0 to continue the item to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to return with a drainage analysis that complies with the City's Waterways Management Plan and Drainage Design Manual, a geotechnical study to examine potential landslide risk, and a re-configuration of the commercial properties to eliminate parking from the creek setback and to allow a vehicle tum-around space. In response to Planning Commission comments, the applicant has now revised the site plan and submitted a geotechnical investigation and a revised site drainage analysis. ( u° Attachment 6 GP/R/ER/TR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 2 Data Summary Address: 215 Bridge Street Applicant: Bridge Street Corporation Zoning: Manufacturing(M) and Open Space (C/OS-5) General Plan: Services and Manufacturing and Conservation Open Space Environmental status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been revised to reflect the current proposal (ER 64-03) Site Description The attached initial study includes a complete site and project description. The project description is unchanged from the Commission's previous review on June 23, 2004, and includes a subdivision with sixteen residential lots and eight commercial units near Bridge Street. PrOiect History The Planning Commission reviewed the original project on September 10, 2003. The Commission took public testimony on the project and offered direction to the applicant without taking formal action. On November 5, 2003, the applicant returned to the Planning Commission with project revisions and additional information. Following a significant amount of public testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the project to the City Council on a 6 to 1 vote. The project consisted of a 21-lot planned development subdivision with 13 residences, four secondary dwelling units and 8 work-live units. The project proposed to offer at least half of the residential units as deed restricted moderately affordable units. On December 3, 2003, the City Council reviewed the planned development and denied the project without prejudice on a 5-0 vote. The Council expressed concern regarding the placement and design of residential structures within a flood zone and adjacent to existing manufacturing uses. Noise conflicts, insufficient parking and neighborhood compatibility were also discussed as potential project concerns at the hearing. Since the Council denied the project without prejudice, the applicant was able to resubmit a revised project without waiting one year as normally would be required following a denial. In response to the City Council's comments, the applicant submitted a revised application. The new application included a noise study, additional information regarding the flood zone, additional building details and additional information for the site topography and construction plan. The project was reconfigured to eliminate residential uses adjacent to the manufacturing building on the narrow portion of the property near Bridge Street. Instead, eight commercial units are now proposed on the eastern edge of the access corridor and sixteen residential units with three secondary dwelling units would be constructed towards the rear of the site. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised project on June 23, 2004. Since the City's Attach��ent 6 GP/R/ER/TR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 3 regulations for development within a flood plain were revised since the original project submittal, the Public Works Division determined that a revised drainage/flood analysis would be required. Additionally, in response to requirements of the Safety Element regarding areas of potential landslide risks, an expanded geotechnical study was required in order to determine the feasibility of building residential structures at this property. Rather than requiring the applicant to prepare the additional studies prior to proceeding to City Council, the Planning Commission continued the item to allow these items to be prepared prior to making a recommendation on the project. Additionally, the Planning Commission asked for minor amendments to the parking and driveway plan to allow for better circulation and compliance with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance. Applicant's response to Planning Commission The applicant has now provided an analysis of predevelopmcnt and post-development flood levels that complies with the City regulations. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a complete geotechnical study that analyzes the development site with consideration to the potential landslide risk area identified in the Safety Element. In response to the Commission's concerns that commercial traffic would have to drive through the residential component in order to turn around, the applicant eliminated three parking spaces from the commercial component to allow for a commercial turn-around area. Plans were also modified to eliminate parking spaces from the required creek setback area. No other changes were incorporated into the project. EVALUATION General Plan Consistency A complete General Plan analysis can be found in Attachment 5. Geotechnical Investigation and Potential Landslide Risk The City's Safety Element map, Figure 5, page 14 identifies an area of potential landslide risk above the proposed homesites. Although no slide evidence exists on this site, Safety Element policy requires that a State registered engineer prepare a geotechnical study for the project site. A geotechnical investigation prepared by a State registered engineering geologist has been prepared with consideration of the potential landslide risk. The report was prepared by GSI Soils Inc. on September 9, 2004, and identifies proposed mitigation measures for ensuring the appropriate placement of residential structures as proposed on the development plan. The report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the engineer's recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The engineer's recommendations_ include retaining walls at the rear of homesites adjacent to the hillside in addition to specific measures for building pad construction and foundation design. With incorporation of these construction mitigation measures the potential landslide risk is a less than significant factor in analyzing site development compatibility.. The revised project Initial Study includes a mitigation � � U Attachment 6 GP/R/ERITR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 4 measure that requires the geotechnical study recommendations to be incorporated into the project design. Hydrology A portion of the project site is located within an "A-O" flood zone that is subject to shallow flooding of up to a two-foot depth. Flooding can occur at this site as the seasonal creekway that runs through Meadow Park overflows its banks. In the previous project hearings, neighbors of the project submitted photos showing the creek overflowing its bank and allowing a shallow flow of water to run through the site in the location of the proposed commercial buildings. This flooding is most likely caused by water backing up in the creek due to an undersized culvert that runs beneath Higuera Street and eventually into San Luis Creek. As required by staff, the applicant originally provided a preliminary drainage analysis of the site including a supplementary Flood Impact Analysis to justify the development. The analysis supports the proposed development and suggests methods of mitigating any drainage concerns. Since project submittal, however the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations have been supplemented through the adoption of the Waterways Management Plan and now require a more conservative assessment of pre and post-development flood conditions. A Registered Civil Engineer has now prepared a revised flood analysis (Keith Crowe, October 14, 2004). The revised analysis has been reviewed by the City Public Works Division and complies with City requirements. The results of the summary indicate that the proposed development will not adversely affect flood depth. Therefore the project complies with City. flood regulations requirements that do not allow the post-development flood depth to be increased by more than 2 t/s inches. The proposed construction, including the proposed new bridge, will be adequately protected and or elevated above areas of potential flooding. Hillside Planning and Development Limit Line The General Plan Hillside Planning Map establishes the development limit line at the 175-foot contour for this property. Criteria for establishing and locating the development limit.lines in the City include water service elevation, steepness of slope, access, slope stability, fire hazard, sensitive plant communities, and visual impacts. In this area, the 175-f6ot contour lies within a fairly level area at the base of the hillside. Heading eastward the 175-foot contour runs through the existing neighborhood and eventually into Meadow Park. Heading westward, the 175-foot contour runs along the lower edge of the hillside. The 175-foot development limit line approximately follows the base of the hills at the proposed development location, however, an adjustment of the boundary up to the 185 foot contour would have no impact on aesthetics, slope stability, fire access or sensitive plant communities on this property. As shown on the proposed development plan, only three of the proposed lots would be located above the 175-foot contour. The proposed finish floor elevations of the residences would range from the 179-foot contour to the approximately 184-foot contour. _ I J�0/ Attachment 6 GP/R/ERfM 64-03 Bridge Street Project 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 5 A cross slope analysis has been provided on the plans in order show the gross cross slope of all of the residential sites that are adjacent to the hillside. When measured from highest point to lowest point, some of the lots exceed 20% in slope and one of the lots exceeds 30% in slope (lot 7). This is because these sites are against the hillside in a location that goes from a level area to a steeply sloping hillside. Several of the homesites are built with retaining walls to allow the homes to be recessed into the slope rather than being built up onto the hillside. For example, the finish floor of the residence on lot 7 has an elevation of 171 feet, however the natural grade at the back of the house is approximately 177 feet. This house will be set against the back of the hill with a 5 or 6-foot tall retaining wall. The Utilities Department has analyzed the proposed amendment and has verified that water pressure is adequate to serve the proposed project as it currently serves the existing house at this site at the 275-foot contour. The Fug Department has reviewed the proposed access plan and agrees that access will be adequate as proposed. Staff has visited the site with the Natural Resources Manager and it appears that no sensitive plant species or serpentine rock formations would be disturbed with the proposed development. As shown in the exhibit below, the adjacent neighborhood around Exposition Drive is already developed up to and above the 200-footcontour. These houses were developed in the mid 1980's. Allowing a minor adjustment of the development limit line at this site (175 to 185 feet) to accommodate an R-2 development is consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. IN staff's view, the adjustment allows for the full use of an existing level area on this property and moves the boundary to a reasonable location. � r ❑ i 0 177.1 183.7 N City Open S m C/OS-5 C/OS-40-SP 223 -1 Attachment 6 GP/R/ER/TR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 6 Subdivision and Planned Development Under the Zoning designation of a Planned Development, a residential subdivision may be developed with lot sizes of any size or shape. Property development standards are also governed by the Planned Development and are not regulated by the standards of the underlying zoning district. In order to approve a Planned Development rezoning, the review authority must find that the project incorporates at least 2 of the following 4 features: 1. A minimum of 25 percent of the residential units within the project are affordable to households of very low, low or moderate income; 2. The project will achieve a minimum of 30 percent greater energy efficiency than minimum required by California Code of Regulations Title 24; 3. The project will preserve, enhance, and/or create a significant natural feature with minimum area of one-half acre;or 4. The project will provide a substantial public amenity, for example, a significant public plaza, a public park, or a similar improved open space feature, including provisions for guaranteed long-term maintenance not at the expense of the City. In this case the proposed project appears to meet 3 of the above features. ✓ It proposes to achieve greater energy efficiency due to proposed wall construction and solar orientation and; ✓ It proposes to preserve the rock features and hillside features above the project site and; ✓ It proposes a public amenity in the form of an access trail linking the site with City open space. In addition to providing at least 2 of the necessary features of a planned development, the project meets the required findings of a planned development as described in Chapter 17.62.045 and as further outlined in the draft resolution of approval. Although the project does not proposed to meet the 25% threshold for affordable housing included in the PD findings above, 1096 of the proposed residential density is proposed to be deed restricted as affordable (see Attachment 6, Inclusionary Housing Proposal). Additionally, the project is assumed to be "affordable by design" in that it proposes small lot attached housing with a shared parking arrangement. The proposed subdivision map, development plan, affordable housing agreement and sustainable construction concepts shall be required components of the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. The Planned Development Ordinance (Chapter 17.62) requires the applicant to file a Final Development Plan with the city within 6 months of City Council approval of the project. The Final Development Plan will incorporate all conditions of approval and will be required to meet the requirements as outlined in Chapter 17.62. The site's overall density cannot exceed the density of the R-2 zoning district and, as proposed, will be built below the allowed density of the R-2 zone. The 2.19-acre site would allow 26.28 density units while only 19.83 density units are proposed. - Attachment 6 GP/R/ER/TR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 7 The primary purpose of the PD zoning will be to allow the density allocated to the 2.19-acre site to be clustered within level building areas, preserving the sensitive portions of the site and the hillsides. Approval of a PD will allow the sustainable site planning and building features, shown on the preliminary development plan, to be incorporated into the project without requiring a series of exceptions to the standard subdivision regulations. The PD will also specify a list of allowed uses for the commercial component of the project. The applicant has proposed a list of uses that will be appropriate in the commercial units considering the scale of the development and the location adjacent to existing and proposed residential areas. The list of proposed uses is attached as Attachment 4. In summary, the type of housing proposed, and the clustering of development away from areas of site sensitivity, is consistent with the purpose of the PD district. Land Use and Neishborhood Compatibility In consideration of the site's location, with its adjacency to land designated as Open Space, a creek, and an existing R-2 residential neighborhood, a land use change to allow a less intensive designation of the property to accommodate the development of a sustainable housing project is a more compatible use than the present Manufacturing designation. Bridge Street itself is predominantly a Commercial-Service and Manufacturing use district; however, it is surrounded by medium and high-density housing in the form of a mobile home park, condominiums and other forms of housing. The Bridge Street area is a "pocket" of commercial land uses that is sandwiched between open space on the South Street Hills and a predominantly residential neighborhood. The new Medium-Density Residential designation would be an extension of Medium-Density already existing along Exposition Drive while acting as an appropriate transition between the Commercial district and hillside Open Space. In order to address the compatibility between the existing manufacturing use and proposed dwelling units, the applicant has redesigned a portion of the project to be developed solely as commercial units. Additionally, a noise study has been completed which provides mitigation measures to address the concerns with the location of new residential units near existing and proposed commercial uses, a flood study justifies how development will be protected within and near the floodplain, and a geotechnical study includes grading and construction recommendations to address concerns with hillside lots and the potential risk of landslides. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires residential development projects of 5 units or more to provide at least 5% of the units as moderately affordable units or pay an in-lieu fee equal to 5% of the housing valuation. In this case the applicant is proposing to construct 2 of the units (12.5% of the total units) to meet the guidelines for moderately affordable housing. The applicant has drafted an affordable housing agreement that has been included as Attachment 7. The affordable units consist of an 1,800 square-foot, three-bedroom residence on Lot 17, and a 450-square foot studio unit on Lot 12. Projects that dedicate at least 20% of the units as affordable housing are eligible for incentives such as a density bonus, fee-waivers, fee reductions or other incentives that the City deems appropriate. Although the proposal exceeds the minimum -S2 Attachment 6 GP/R/EPrM 64-03 Bridge Street Project 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 8 amount of affordable housing, it does not qualify the project for incentives. The applicant would be willing to consider creating additional affordable housing if incentives can be made available. The City Council makes the final determination for the incentives that should be offered to a project. The Planning Commission should review the draft affordable housing proposal and make a recommendation to the Council as to whether the proposal.is acceptable or whether additional affordable units should be supplied and incentives should be offered. In order to avoid prevailing wage requirements, the City can only offer financial incentives towards the creation of the affordable units or specific improvements triggered by the affordable units such as application and fee waivers, and direct building construction improvement costs. Parking The site provides individual covered parking spaces for each of the units (both commercial and residential) in addition to visitor parking spaces adjacent to the access road. The proposed tract map displays the parking configuration and the number of required spaces as summarized in the following table. TABLE 1: Par ing Calculations Zoning Regulations Required Provided parking Requirements parking Commercial: 29 26 parking spaces are located within 1 space per 300 s.f thecommercial district Residential: 39 22 covered spaces 1.5 each unit+ 1 per extra 4 spaces bedroom. 10 tandem spaces Studios= 1 space 7 visitor spaces Guest 1 per 5 units143 total residential spaces) Total: 68 69 At the previous PC hearing, concerns were raised regarding limited tum-around space for vehicles accessing the commercial units. The fear was that commercial traffic, including delivery trucks, would have to enter the residential neighborhood in order to fmd space to turn around and exit the development. A turn-around space has now been incorporated into the plans,just south of the commercial units. Since the commercial condominium will contain a variety of tenant spaces, the commercial parking area is eligible for a 10% shared parking reduction. A 10% reduction will reduce the parking,requirement by 3 spaces, allowing the amended site plan with parking removed from the creek setback area and allowing for a turn-around space to meet code requirements. Staff s recommendation includes support of a 10% parking reduction for the commercial component. Although the residential component of the project supplies more parking than required by code, �_52 Attachment 6 GP/R/ER/TR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 9 the distribution of the parking does not appropriately correspond to the size of the units. In the R-2 district, a studio apartment requires one parking space, a one:bedroom requires 1.5, a two bedroom requires 2 and a three-bedroom requires 2.5 parking spaces. Although the intention of the parking plan is to allow shared parking, the design would benefit from appropriately allocating more parking to larger units, and fewer parking spaces to smaller units. Some of the one-bedroom units have two-car garages while some of the three-bedroom units have only a single car garage with a tandem parking space outside. If a more appropriate parking plan cannot be achieved with a simple redesign of the applicable units, then a shared parking plan that allocates specific parking for designated units may need to be incorporated into the final development plan. As noted in the parking calculations above, some of the required vehicle parking spaces for the residential component are tandem spaces(one vehicle parked behind another vehicle in a single wide driveway). Although tandem parking is allowed in certain circumstances, it is often discouraged. The City's Zoning Regulations allow tandem parking to be approved when parking spaces are identified for the exclusive use of occupants of a designated dwelling. Since the proposed tandem-parking plan is identified for the independent use of select dwelling units, the findings to approve such a parking plan can be made. The resolution contains a finding that supports the tandem parking design. Bicycle parking will be provided in the form of bicycle benches. Bicycle benches are metal pedestrian benches that can be utilized for seating and for securing bicycles. The metal slats in the benches are widely spaced so as to allow a bicycle tire to be secured within the bench. Access Driveway Development Review and Public Works staff have reviewed the proposed development. The Transportation Division finds that the project will create less than significant impacts to area circulation. Primary access to the site will be from a 20-foot wide access road that will be constructed in place of the existing driveway that currently serves the 2 residences from Bridge Street. A new clear span bridge will be constructed to span the creekway. The new access road will be a private driveway with an access easement across the proposed lots. The driveway surface is proposed to consist of a turf block style pervious surface that can be approved for fire truck and large vehicle capacity. The new bridge will be constructed outside of the floodplain, therefore allowing vehicles to cross the:creek in the event of a 100-year storm event. In addition to vehicular access, a pedestrian pathway with a decomposed granite surface is proposed as a linkage from the interior of this site through to the existing City Open space trail that begins on Exposition Drive. The path is an amenity that is recommended by staff and is not an applicant driven component of the project. � �5�f Attachment 6 GP/R/ER/TR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 10 Creek-Setback Exception The replacement of the existing vehicular bridge with a new clear span bridge that avoids the flood zone and complies with City standards for vehicular access, requires an exception to the Creek Setback Regulations. Normally replacement structures are not subject to the exception requirements, however the new structure will be larger in scale than the existing structure. In this case, the findings can be made to support the creek setback exception since there are no reasonable or feasible alternatives to develop the project (or reach the existing residences for that matter) without crossing the creek. The existing bridge is an older single lane bridge that allows vehicular access to the two residences south of the creek. The proposed new bridge would be a 20-foot wide clear span bridge that would be environmentally superior to the existing structure. The new bridge would have a wider span, avoiding close contact with the creek bank. The height of the bridge would be constructed above the 100-year flood plain, enhancing emergency access and allowing safe access during a 100-year storm event. The new bridge is proposed at the same location of the existing access road and bridge, minimising additional impact to the creek bank. The resolution recommending approval of the subdivision and planned development contains findings in support of the setback exception.. The City's Natural Resource Manager has reviewed the site conditions and has determined that an exception can be supported without significant impacts to sensitive habitat features or areas. Environmental Review An initial study of environmental review was drafted for the original project and a revised initial study has now been prepared for the new project submittal. Noise, flooding, geology and archeology are discussed in detail in the study. David Lord, a private noise consultant, performed a noise study for the proposed development. The noise study concluded that the proposed residential development would be subject to less than significant noise impacts if built with appropriate mitigation. Noise levels in the project will fully comply with the City's Noise Element standards. The noise study is attached to the environmental initial study. As discussed earlier, the property is noted as a potential landslide risk in the City's Safety Element. As detailed within the Initial Study, mitigation is necessary to ensure the safe construction of residential properties on this site. The existing creek channel and the property immediately adjacent to it is considered a floodplain and is identified on City flood hazard maps. The project would be designed to accommodate the floodway, and a hydrology study has been completed tosupport the project as proposed. Unlike the original proposal, the project is subject to review and approval under the City's new Waterways Management Plan and Drainage Design Manual. An archaeologist was retained to perform a phase 1 surface site analysis in order to determine if -7 - 55 Attach -,nsnt 6 GP/R/ER/TR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page i 1 additional sub-surface archeological studies will be necessary. The archeology study is attached to the initial study. In summary, the report concluded that the site is not a significant cultural site and does not warrant further study. The archeologist noted the age of the existing residence on the site as a 1920's era California Bungalow. This residence does not exist on City historic records, however, and staff has performed additional research on the property in order to determine the significance of the residence. The residence was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) on June 28`h, 2004. The CHC did not recommend further action, and did not place the residence on a list of contributing historic residences in the City. The residence can be moved from the property or demolished without further City review following a photo documentation and issuance of a City demolition or house moving permit. Staff has visited the site with the City's Natural Resource Manager in order to determine the presence of sensitive species or habitats. A portion of the site is within an area containing serpentine rock. The serpentine rock areas of the South Street Hills are known to contain sensitive plant species. The proposed project, however, does not significantly encroach into areas of serpentine rock, and existing significant serpentine rock outcroppings on the hillside will remain intact. The Natural Resources Manager concurs with the proposed creek setback and agrees that the project will not impact any known sensitive habitats creek or hillside habitats. No sensitive animal or plant species were found and no other natural resource issues were confirmed on site. Summary The revised project and additional studies have appropriately addressed the comments raised by concerned citizens at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. The project seeks to construct an innovative, highly sustainable, residential subdivision on an irregular site. The project has achieved many of the requests of staff in relation to the design and placement of buildings and improvements. The Planning Commission should review the project and determine if the proposed General Plan Amendment and subdivision is warranted given the merits of the project. Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. Attached: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale tract map and project drawings 3. Applicant's project description 4. Exhibit A, list of proposed commercial uses 5. General Plan analysis 6. Draft Inclusionary Housing Proposal 7. Proposed Zoning Map 8. Planning Commission Minutes,November 5, 2003 9. City Council action update December 3, 2003 10. City Council Ordinance 1445 11. ARC meeting minutes April 19, 2004 ��to Attachment 6 GP/R/ER/PR 64-03 Bridge Street Project 10-27-04 215 Bridge Street Page 12 12. Planning Commission minutes June 23, 2004 13. Initial Study of Environmental Review 14. Chapter 17.62 of the Zoning Ordinance, Planned Developments 15. Comparison of Predevelopment and Post-development Flood Levels (minus technical appendix which is available in the project file) 16. Geotechnical investigation (minus figures and appendix which is available in the project file) IT.Draft resolution recommending approval of the project Full-scale project plans will be distributed to the Planning Commission, a copy of which will be available at the Community Development Department. -7 _5 -7 Attachment 7 - Bridge Street Project General Plan Analysis October 27, 2004 Land Use Element LU 2.4.6.Medium-Density Residential Development should be primarily dwellings having locations and forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for the households occupying them, but in a more compact arrangement than Low- Density Residential. Such dwellings are generally one- or two-story detached buildings on small lots, or attached dwellings, with some private outdoor space for each dwelling. Other uses which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such as parks, schools, and churches, may be permitted. Medium-density development is appropriate as a transition from low-density development to higher densities. Staff_response: The development plan for the residential portion of the project meets the general plan description of medium density residential. The residences are two story attached and detached structures on small lots with some outdoor open space for each dwelling. The site is an appropriate transition from adjacent low density residential to the commercial service and manufacturing uses to the east. LU 3.0.1: Slope Commercial and industrial uses should be developed in appropriate areas where the natural slope of the land is less than ten percent. Staff response: The area proposed for housing ranges from 5% to approximately 25% in slope, and is therefore more appropriate for residential uses rather than commercial or industrial uses as currently designated. The area that will remain within the Manufacturing district is a fairly level area with slopes less than 5% and is therefore suited for such uses. LU 3.0.2:Access Commercial and industrial uses should have access from arterial and collector streets, and should be designed and located to avoid increasing traffic on residential streets. Staff response: The proposed commercial development area is sited to avoid access through the residential area. Proposed commercial activities do not rely upon residential streets for site access. Unless a tum-around space is incorporated into the project as recommended by staff (see parking section below), the proposed parking plan would cause vehicles to enter the residential area to turn around, therefore creating an inconsistency with this general plan policy. LU 6.2.0:Hillsides As discussed in the open space section, San Luis Obispo wants to keep open its steeper, higher, and most visible hillsides. Some of the lower and less steep hillside areas, however, are seen as suitable for development, particularly where development is coupled with permanent open space protection of the more sensitive areas. � r5� Attachment T Staff response: The proposed development is within a lower, fairly level area below the scenic resources and sensitive slope areas. Project conditions require a private open space easement to be recorded with the final map for the property. The easement will ensure preservation of the hillside and specify restrictions of such property. No such easement presently exists, and the open space zoning (C/OS-5) does not specifically restrict all types of development. LU 6.2.1:Development Limits Hillsides planning areas should have carefully chosen development limit lines, and special design standards for the areas that can be developed. The location of the development limit and the standards should cause development to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Open Space Element, and public health and safety problems related to utility service, access, wildland fire hazard, erosion, fiooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards. Also, the development limit line and the standards should help protect the City's scenic setting. Staff response: The proposed shift of the development limit line could be found consistent with this policy in that no sensitive habitats or unique resources will be included within the development area. The applicants proposed plan does not provide for hillside development and proposes a development limit line much lower in elevation than existing adjacent development. Project conditions require building envelopes to be established on the final map with building footprints and development boundaries to be adopted as part of the planned development. Wildland fire hazards at this site are not considered to be significant since only low grasses exist on the hillside and.the serpentine rock habitat does not support substantial brush or tree growth. LU 6.2.3:Parcels Crossing the Limit Lines Before development occurs on any parcel which crosses the urban reserve or development limit lines, the part outside the lines shall be protected as permanent open space. Staff response: The project is proposed to adjust the development limit line and provide for parcels which will cross over the hillside development limit line. The project conditions of approval require the area outside the development limit line to be preserved as permanent open space.. LU 2.2.2: Separation and Buffering Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing businesses, traffic arteries, the freeway, and the railroad. Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by detrimental commercial and industrial activities. Staff response: The primary housing area has adequate buffering from commercial and industrial activities. Unlike the original application, the housing units are pushed further from existing commercial uses, and no residential development is proposed adjacent to proposed or existing commercial uses. A noise study has been performed to examine the location of existing and proposed commercial uses and proposed residential uses. In �_5c - Attachment 7 addition, the rezone to R-2 —PD furthers this policy by moving the industrial potential of this property away from established.neighborhoods and closer to similar activities. LU 2.2.4.Residential Next to Nonresidential In designing development at the boundary between residential and nonresidential uses,protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority. Staff response: This development will create an appropriate boundary between existing residential and non-residential uses. Existing zoning has the potential to introduce detrimental manufacturing uses adjacent to existing single family residential neighborhoods. The proposed commercial development is intended to serve light commercial and office uses and therefore will serve as an appropriate transition between the Bailey bridge manufacturing building and nearby single family residential. 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. Staff response: The proposal allows for the preservation of the existing creek and the existing rock formations of the hillside. The existing non-native blackberry brambles and associated drainage area will also be preserved and incorporated as a project amenity. Building footprints and development restrictions are required as conditions of approval to ensure the future preservation of these areas. Housing Element 2.3.5 Review and revise existing and proposed building and planning policies and regulations to encourage "green building technology", and to allow construction of personalized, unconventional housing types that reduce cost andlor energy and materials consumption relative to conventional construction,provided that residential quality and safety can be maintained. Staff response: The above reference is a "Program" rather than a policy and indicates the desire that the City take the specified action. However, it is important to note that the project indeed proposes to incorporate green building technology in terms of substantially increasing wall insulation, utilizing building and window orientation for optimizing solar heating/cooling, utilizing low cost sustainable building materials, conserving water, and utilizing pervious paving to reduce site runoff. The applicants project description describes additional sustainable features to be incorporated into the project. The housing is not proposed to be a conventional "stick built" stock housing product, however it is a sustainable, modem housing approach that incorporates quality and safety. 4.2.1 Within newly developed neighborhoods, housing that is affordable to various economic strata should be intermixed rather than segregated into separate enclaves. The mix should be comparable to the relative percentages Attachment 7 of very low, low, moderate and above-moderate income households in the City's quantified objectives. Staff response: The project's Inclusionary housing proposal incorporates two affordable housing units that are intermixed with the proposed residential development. The affordable housing component is discussed in greater detail below. 4.2.2 Include both market-rate and affordable units in apartment and residential condominium projects and intermix the types of units. Affordable units should be comparable in appearance and basic quality to market-rate units. Staff response: The project's Inclusionary housing proposal incorporates two affordable housing units that are comparable in appearance and quality to proposed market rate units. The affordable housing component is discussed in greater detail below. 6.3.2 Amend the Zoning Regulations to allow flexible parking regulations for housing development, especially in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone), including the possibility of reduced or no parking requirements where appropriate guarantees limit occupancies to persons without motor vehicles or who provide proof of reserved, off-site parking. Staff.response: Again as a "Program", policy conformance is not an issue. The project is not seeking a parking reduction or flexible parking requirements for the residential or commercial component of the project that don't already exist in City regulations. As proposed, the project complies with the City's parking requirements. The Commission however may consider this General Plan policy when offering direction on the site layout, tandem-parking request, and orientation of parking spaces in relation to the creek or other amenities. The mix of uses within the site may allow the project to be eligible for parking reductions should it be necessary to improve the design of the site layout. 6.3.7 Consider amendments to the General Plan to rezone commercial, manufacturing or public facility zoned areas for residential use, to promote higher-density, infill or mixed-use housing where land development patterns are no longer valid and where impact to Low Density Residential areas is minimal. Staff response: The project proposes to amend the manufacturing district to allow housing on a site that is more appropriately suited for housing and will in part implement this Housing Element Program. The site is a reasonable location for infill housing and is consistent with adjacent low and medium density residential development. Because of the location of the site, and the very limited visibility of the project from existing low-density residential areas, the impact to existing low- density residential areas is minimal. 7.2.3 Within established neighborhoods, housing should not be located on sites designated in the General Plan for parks or open space. Attachment 7 Staff response: A small portion of the proposed housing location is within land designated as open space on the General Plan map. The site is not designated for a park, is not publicly owned, nor does it contain open space easements. If the development limit line were adjusted from 175 to 185, the General Plan amendment would eliminate a small portion of land designated as open space at the base of the hills, approximately 13,140 square feet. At the same time, the project conditions require permanent open space protection (deed restriction) of the remaining 5-6 acres of open space. Additionally, project conditions require an open space easement for the existing non-native blackberry brambles and associated drainage swale. Although not a native species, the blackberry brambles serve as a wildlife corridor and a bird habitat. The size of the open space easement required for the blackberry brambles is similar in size to the amount of open space removed with the development limit line shift. The applicants goal (and project conditions) is to achieve a no-net loss of open space through the use of open space easements. The Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed residential development is appropriately sited given the development pattern of the neighborhood, affected natural resources, the viewshed, and proposed project conditions. The location of the development limit line on the adjacent neighborhood, the sustainable components of the project, the planned development rezoning, and the proposed affordable housing agreement should be considered as justification for the minor adjustment to the development limit line. 7.2.7 The physical designs of neighborhoods and'dwellings should promote walking and bicycling, and should preserve open spaces and views. Staff response: The housing development is designed to promote walking and bicycling through the use of trail linkage and appropriately located bicycle-parking areas. As proposed, the location of the structures maintains the view of the hillside from adjacent areas. The majority of the open space would be preserved with a conservation easement as part of the final map process. Goal 9.1 Sustainable Housing, Site, and Neighborhood Design. As part of its overall commitment to quality of life for its citizens, and to maintaining environmental quality, the City encourages housing that is resource- conserving, healthful, economical to live in, environmentally benign, and recyclable when demolished. Staff reponse: As mentioned above and discussed in detail in the applicant's project description, the project strives to set a new standards in sustainable housing design. The increased efficiency of the units is intended to be economical to live in while conserving energy resources. 9.2.1 Residential developments should promote sustainability in their design, placement, and use. Sustainability can be promoted through a variety of housing strategies, including the following: Attachment 7 a) Maximize use of renewable, recycled-content, and recycled materials, and minimize use of building materials that require high levels of energy to produce or that cause significant, adverse environmental impacts. b) Incorporate renewable energy features into new homes, including passive solar design, solar hot water, solar power, and natural ventilation and cooling. c) Minimize thermal island effects through reduction of heat-absorbing pavement and increased tree shading. d)Avoid building materials that may contribute to health problems through the release of gasses or glass fibers into indoor air. e) Design dwellings for quiet, indoors and out, for both the mental and physical health of residents. J) Design dwellings economical to live in because of reduced utility bills, low cost maintenance and operation, and improved occupant health. g) Use construction materials and methods that maximize the recyclability of a building's pans. h) Educate public, staff, and builders to the advantages and approaches to sustainable design, and thereby develop consumer demand for sustainable housing. Staff response: The project incorporates all of the above recommended sustainability components as discussed in the applicants project description. The sustainable design is a key part of the planned development justification and is incorporated within the project conditions as part of the planned development approval. 9.2.2 Residential site, subdivision, and neighborhood designs should be coordinated to make residential sustainability work. Some ways to do this include: a)Design subdivisions to maximize solar access for each dwelling and site. b) Design sites so residents have usable outdoor space with access to both sun and shade. c)Streets and access ways should minimize pavement devoted to vehicular use. d) Use neighborhood retention basins to purify street runoff prior to its entering creeks. Retention basins should be designed to be visually attractive as well as functional. Fenced-off retention basins should be avoided. e) Encourage cluster development with dwellings grouped around significantly-sized, shared open space in return for City approval of smaller individual lots. f) Treat public streets as landscaped parkways, using continuous plantings at least six feet wide and where feasible, median planters to enhance, define, and to buffer residential neighborhoods of all densities from the effects of vehicle traffic. Staff response: The design incorporates all of the above recommended sustainable site planning features including a concealed underground water retention basin, pervious paving, logical solar access, cluster style development, and adequate usable outdoor space. Attachment 7 9.2.4 To promote energy conservation and a cleaner environment, encourage the development of dwellings with energy-efficient designs, utilizing passive and active solar features, and the use of energy-saving techniques that exceed minimums prescribed by State law. Staff response: The design includes energy conserving construction standards that exceed minimum building code requirements for insulation ratings. The building designs contain both passive and active solar features to conserve energy. 9.2.5 Actively promote water conservation through housing and site design to help moderate the cost of housing. Staff. response: The design of the project is intended to conserve water by minimizing landscape areas, utilizing a water catchment system for each building, and incorporating an enclosed water retention basin that is designed to be used for landscape areas. 11.2.1 Where property is equally suited for commercial or residential uses, give preference to residential use. Changes in land use designation from residential to non-residential should be discouraged. Staff reponse: This application proposes to change a commercial designation to residential, therefore giving preference to existing and proposed residential uses. 11.2.2 Prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved as dedicated open space or parks, on sites subject to natural hazards such as unmitigatable geological or flood risks, or wild fire dangers, and on sites subject to unacceptable levels of man-made hazards or nuisances, including severe soil contamination, airport noise or hazards, traffic noise or hazards, odors or incompatible neighboring uses. Staff response: The proposed project would place residential units adjacent to, and partially within, land designated as open space on the General Plan map. The property is not "dedicated" open space nor is it a designated park space. The majority of the site is currently designated for manufacturing uses. No known area hazards such as wild fire hazards, soil contamination, airport noise or other man made hazards exist. Housing will, however be placed within an area that is nearby an existing manufacturing area The Planning Commission should determine compliance with this Housing Element policy by considering the projects benefits (i.e. affordable housing, sustainable site design etc.) and the location of the development limit line on neighboring property. The policy asks that housing not be developed on sites that "should be preserved as open space". Should the private property at the base of the hills between the 175 and 185-foot elevation contours be preserved as open space? Safety Element S 3.2 Avoiding Slope instability Development shall not be located on or immediately below unstable slopes, or contribute to slope instability. Any development proposed in an area of —7 —1 Laq Attachment 7 moderate or high landslide potential shall be subject to review and recommendation by a State-registered engineering geologist. Staff response: The City's Safety Element map, Figure 5, page 14 identifies an area of potential landslide risk above the proposed homesites. Although no slide evidence exists on this site, the property is subject to review and recommendations by an engineer who specializes in geotechnical investigations. A geotechnical investigation prepared by a State registered engineering geologist has been prepared with consideration of the potential landslide risk. The report was prepared by GSI soils Inc. on September 9, 2004 and identifies proposed mitigation measures for ensuring the appropriate placement of residential structures as proposed on the development plan. The report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the engineer's recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The engineers recommendations include retaining walls at the rear of homesites adjacent to the hillside in addition to specific measures for building pad construction and foundation design. Attachment--8 Draft Inclusionary Housing Proposal And Affordable Housing Agreement Between The City of San Luis Obispo And The Bridge Street Group, A Non-Profit Housing Corporation Regarding GPA / Rezone / TTM / PUD 64-03 The Bridgq Street Neighborhood Project This Inclusionary Housing Proposal and Affordable Housing Agreement, prepared on.the 23th of February, 2004, is between the City of San Luis Obispo (hereby referred to as "City"), and the Bridge Street Group, a non-profit housing corporation (hereby referred to as "Applicant"). The purpose of this proposal is to outline and document the intentions of the applicant, with regards to inclusionary affordable housing, in conjunction with entitlement and construction of a new mixed-use project known as the Bridge Street Neighborhood Project (hereby referred to as "Project"), to be located at 215 Bridge Street, in the city of San Luis Obispo, California. Whereas the Applicant has filed entitlement applications for a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, which would allow construction of 8 new commercial units, and 19 residential units, on 24 new individual lots, on an existing 7.73 acre parcel within city limits. And whereas the City requires any new development to demonstrate method and provision for inclusionary and affordable housing units, And whereas the Applicant desires to provide to the City an affordable housing project that exceeds the minimum city requirements for inclusionary housing units. Therefore, the Applicant proposes, acknowledges and hereby agrees to the following: 1. This Project proposes to meet the (minimum) 5% affordable housing required via physical construction and subsequent sale of affordable units per this PUD project. 2. As designed, the Applicant intends to sell at least 10% of the total housing units built under the moderate-income category,.as stated in the affordable housing guidelines. 3. As designed, the lots and units currently slated for sale under the moderate- affordable category include Lots 12 and 17. These units range in size from 450 s.f. studio units (Lot 12), up to 1,800 s.f. three-bedroom single-family homes (Lot 17). 4. The Project, as proposed, will double the city's minimum requirements for affordable housing units required for this type and size of new development. 5. The Project, as proposed, will meet or exceed all city zoning and development standards for a residential Planned Unit Development. Attachment a 6. For those units built and sold under the moderate affordable category, the Applicant seeks to pursue planning, building, and development fee waivers for all affordable residential units constructed in this Project. However, it is our understanding that certain restrictions and conditions may apply to the acceptance of these fee waivers, which may increase the cost of construction of these units, and thus reduce the applicant's ability to sell these units at affordable rates. Hence, the Applicant desires to work with city staff to investigate the validity of these restrictions and/or explore all available options to ensure maximum affordability in terms of unit count. 7. In lieu of, or in addition to, possible fee waiver incentives, the Applicant may desire to seek alternative city incentives, including but not limited to: a. City installed public improvements b. City-subsidized insurance premiums c. Other alternative incentives as yet to be defined 8. Those lots/units designated and sold as affordable by the Applicant shall be deed restricted in terms of their inclusion in this affordable housing program. 9. Those lots/units sold under the affordable guidelines will be held as affordable units for a term of not less than 30 years. 10. All lots/units initially sold under the affordable guidelines will be required to be owner- occupied, with restrictions detailed in the Project CC&R's. 11. Lots/units initially sold under the affordable guidelines may be re-sold by the initial buyer under a "shared-equity" program, in which the buyer receives a portion of the equity increase realized between the original selling price and the new affordable sales price, as set at the time of re-sale: This condition shall apply to all subsequent sellers of affordable units through the term of affordability as stated in item 9 above. Upon its execution, this agreement shall inure to and be binding upon the City and Applicant and their heirs, successors and assigns to all real property created through vesting entitlements for this Project. Entered into this day of , 2004, in the city of San Luis Obispo, California. City of San Luis Obispo Bridge Street Group, Inc. City Attorney Date Applicant Date r4 Ilii IIII of sAn hos oBiW 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER#64-03 1. Project Title: Bridge Street Project Tract 2560, GP/R/TR 6403 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: 215 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: John and Mary Semon, Bridge Street Corporation, 1130 Garden Street Suite A, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Services&Manufacturing and Conservation/Open Space 7. Zoning: Manufacturing and Conservation/Open Space 8. Description of the Project: The project is a seventeen-lot Planned Development with sixteen lots proposed as residential homesites and one lot reserved for an 8-unit airspace commercial condominium development adjacent to the creek and the Bailey bridge building. The existing General Plan Map designates the 7.73-acre site as manufacturing with a large portion of the site above the 175-foot contour designated as Conservation/Open Space. The amendment will designate 2.19 acres as Medium- Density Residential, with 24,284 square feet remaining in manufacturing (M zone) adjacent to Bridge Street and 5.06 acres on the hillside remaining in Conservation/Open Space. Part of the General Plan Amendment would modify the location of the development limit line from the 175- foot contour up to the 185-foot contour at the base of the South Street Hills. The new Zoning Designation on the property would replace the Manufacturing district with Medium Density Residential for property below the 185-foot contour. The narrow-portion of the property adjacent to Bridge Street and the Bailey bridge building would remain within the Manufacturing district. A Planned Development overlay zone would be created to govern the specific property development standards for the development, allowing unique lot sizes and interior lot setbacks as well as control incompatible industrial uses. The applicant is requesting ® 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(8o5)781-7410. Attachment 9 to adjust the development limit line from the 175-foot contour to the 185-foot contour to accommodate reasonable site development for some of the residential dwelling units. The property between the 175 and 185-foot contours is currently within the Open Space (C/OS-5) district and the applicant's request includes amending a portion of the existing open space zoning to medium density residential (approximately 13,140 square feet). The development plan for the site would include 16 residential dwelling units, 3 secondary residential dwelling units and 8 commercial dwelling units in the following configuration: Lot 1: 8-unit commercial condominium, Manufacturing zoning. Lots 2, 3, 6,8: two bedroom residences, R-2-PD Zoning. Lots 4 and 7: one bedroom residences, R-2-PD Zoning. Lots 5,9 and 13: Studio dwelling units,R-2-PD Zoning. Lots 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16: three bedroom residences, R-2-PD Zoning. Lots 17: four bedroom dwelling unit, R-2-PD Zoning. Remainder Parcel: Existing single-family residence to remain within Open Space (C/OS-5) Zoning (5.06 acres). Lots 12, 16 and 17 would contain secondary studio dwelling units of 450 square feet in size. The proposed project incorporates sustainable building concepts and provides for two affordable housing units. The proposed residences and commercial units will incorporate a steel structure with an ecologically sensitive wall system. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The subject parcel is a 7.73-acre flag lot site with the flagpole portion of the lot accessing Bridge Street. The property is currently a single parcel and contains two residences accessible from a narrow, paved driveway. The rear of the property, behind the proposed development site, slopes up in a southward direction with slopes ranging from 20% to 30% and steeper. The proposed development site on the property lies within a fairly level area at the base of this slope. It is bordered to the west by the Bailey Bridge Building and to the south by an open space area known as the "South Street Hills".- The east border is located adjacent to additional open space property within the South Street Hills, while an existing R-2 residential subdivision is located to the north east of the property. A seasonal creek intersects the lower portion of the property adjacent to Bridge Street. The Land Use Map and Zoning map for the property indicates that the portion of the property below the 175-foot contour is within the Manufacturing designation, while property above that contour line is within the Conservation/Open Space designation. Other properties bordering Bridge Street within the project vicinity are zoned Manufacturing and Commercial Service with properties to the west maintaining a development limit line of 175 feet. Properties to the east of the site are within the R-2 and R-1 zone with a development limit line of approximately 225 feet. 0i/ C(rY OF SAN LUIS()aISBO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Attachment: 9 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The project proposes the following: 1. General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use from Manufacturing to Medium-Density Residential, and minor adjustment of the development limit line to accommodate residential development. 2. Zone Map Change to allow R-2-PD (Medium-Density Residential Planned Development) on land zoned Manufacturing. 3. Tentative Tract Map to allow a 16-lot residential planned development subdivision and eight unit commercial condominium. 11. Other public agencies whoseapproval is required: California Department of Fish and Game �r CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Attachment 9 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 X. Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems X X Cultural Resources 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 deminimi 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)). Cmr OF SAN LUIS Oamn 4 I=LL STUDY EmiRONmENTAL CNEcKusT 2004 Attachment 9 r DETERMiNATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been X made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re'ared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL HVI PACT 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. i Date Ronald Whisenand Deputy Community Development Director - For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director Ctry OF SAN Wes OBtsPo 5 WmAL STUDY ENvutoNmErrrw.CHEca.ar 2004 Attachment 9 EVALUATION F ENVIRONMENTAL O IMPACTS. 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section: A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)of the California 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 shouldidentify 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. �� Cmr of SAN Lois OBaPo _ 6 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKLtsT.2004 Issues, Discussion and Suppor iformation Sources Sources P" -y pommy UUTW�-1111 4W It Bridge Street Project GP/R/IR 64_. S. ant significant significant Impact ER#64-03 hbaw Unless impact Mitigation Inco hued 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? —X— b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited _X_ to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of _X_ the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would _X_ adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation The project site is not located within a scenic vista,however a portion of the development will extend towards the base of the South Street Hills. The higher portions of the South Street Hills are considered a scenic vista within the City. The development limit line presently at the site is the 175-foot contour. The significant viewshed of this portion of the property starts at approximately the 300-foot contour and above. Extensive residential development already exists above the 175-foot contour and up to the 300-foot contour within this vicinity. The proposed project is requesting to re-establish a development limit line at the 185-foot contour at this property. Because this elevation is well below the 300-foot contour that is considered a significant vista, modifying the development line an additional 10 feet to the 185-foot contour will not result in significant impacts to a scenic vista Since the proposed development will be located behind existing commercial properties, there will be limited visibility to the site from the public roadway (Bridge Street). A seasonal creek and its associated vegetation that includes willow trees and native shrubs further screens the proposed project site from the roadway and adjacent properties. No new substantial sources of light or glare are anticipated from the project since the proposal is a small-scale residential project with a private driveway. The project proposal may include reflective roofing materials including but not limited to solar panels and metal roofing. Careful design and placement of such materials will reduce off site impacts to a less than significant level. Less than significant lighting impacts are anticipated since no substantial light sources are proposed with the project. Mitigation.Measures:Aesthetics a) New construction above the 175-foot contour shall be limited to a 25-foot maximum height limit b) Existing willow trees and blackberry brambles at the north boundary of the site shall remain in place and be protected during all phases of site construction. Grading limitations,raised foundations,and careful placement of the structures shall accommodate the existing topography and vegetation. Other trees shall remain on site unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department and the City Arborist for removal. c) If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare shall be required,to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. d) Reflective roofing materials shall not be allowed unless proven that the reflective material will not produce off site glare to neighboring residential properties or the public right of way. e) Site development shall be restricted to building footprints shown on the development plan as approved by City Council. All areas above the 185-foot contour within the remainder parcel shall be deed restricted with a private open space easement. The easement shall restrict further development of this property and define allowed uses such as passive recreational paths,landscape and drainage maintenance and necessary fire fuel management. The existing residence,garage and driveway,including a 25-foot radius around the existing development shall be exempt from the required deed restriction. f) The existing blackberry brambles and associate drainage swale shall remain in place and a preservation easement shall be recorded across the proposed lots for these features. The easement shall specify allowed uses and shall not allow grading, construction or removal of vegetation unless necessary for fire fuel management or City approved drainage improvements. Crry OF SAN Luis Oetspo 7 ImnAL STUDY FKMONMENTAL CNErnw 2004 -7i77q Issues, Discussion and Suppor" formation Sources sotm:es Po' - PMenfially Bridge Street Project GPIR/TR 64-..,-- St IDE Significant Significant Impact ER#64-03 issues Units Impact Mitigation In fated 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the reject: a) Convert Prima Faimland;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? Evaluation The existing site and vicinity is not shown as prime farmland on California Resources Agency maps. Property adjacent to the proposed development site has historically been utilized for cattle grazing. No impacts to existing on-site or off-site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site. 3. AIR QUALrlN. Would the projecb a) Violate any su quality standard or contribute substantially to an -X-- existing or piojected 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) Curate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of _X_ people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for 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 ? Impacts from the actual development,including but not limited to excavation and construction of the site,has the potential to create dust and vehicle emissions that may exceed air quality standards for a temporary and intermittent periods unless mitigation measures are incorporated. Following completion of construction,the proposed project is anticipated to create less than significant impacts to air quality. Naturally Occurring Asbestos has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common in the City of San Luis Obispo and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, the applicant must comply with all applicable requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM, prior to any construction or grading activities at the site. Mitigation Measures: Air Quality The following dust mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution impacts associated with grading and construction of the site. They are required from the start, and are to be maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: a) Unless otherwise approved, an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District for review and approval prior to the start of any construction or grading activity. The plan, if required shall be implemented during all phases of earthwork at the site. b) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less; c) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; i� CRY OF SAN Luis OBim 8 1NmAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKLssT 2004 -7-- Issues, Discussion and Support' Iormation Sources sow for poteatisuy �s ' Bridge Street Project GP/RrM 64-t._ - Si; int sivaicmn si 'apace Issues Unless hnpact ER#64-03 Mitigation Inco rated 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 coveted 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. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: p) 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 flame or U.S.Trish ahyd Wildlife Service?.. b), Have asubstantial adverse effect,on any ng lta_bitat.or, -X ' other sensitive naturalcommunity identified is lodal or regional' plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department 'of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? . e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting -X- biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident --X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e): Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat donservati`on plan? .I)• have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined m Section 40-4 of the 0caii Water Act (including;but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.)' through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or. othermeans? The upper areas of the South Street Hills contain extensive areas of serpentine rock that may contain sensitive plant species. The proposed project site is outside of areas containing extensive serpentine rock and is characterized by a grass-covered pasture. Therefore,no impacts to this habitat are anticipated. The project proposes construction adjacent to a seasonal creek. The main project driveway crosses this creek and a new bridge spanning the creek will be a component of the project. The seasonal creek at this location has been historically diverted and channelized to accommodate adjacent commercial development. The project, as proposed, generally complies with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance (as conditioned), as all new construction will not encroach into the established setbacks of the creek channel. A creek setback exception, however, will be required in order to replace the existing vehicle bridge. The project does not include grading or other modifications to the creek channel. No known candidate, sensitive, or special status species occur within the riparian habitat of the creek, or within areas beyond the creek corridor that will be impacted by the proposed project. Mitigation is necessary to ensure compliance with the Creek Setback Ordinance, and to prevent construction vehicles, dirt, debris, or other items from entering the creek channel or setback area. Mitigation is also necessary to guide the development of a replacement bridge at the main driveway. Mitigation Measures: Biological Resources a) All construction activities including grading, vegetation removal, stockpiling, equipment storage etc. shall remain `D Cn'Y of SAN Luis Osispo 9 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEt KusT 2004 --I—�-7 L Issues, Discussion and Suppor' ormation Sources sow �r Bridge Street Project GP/RfrR 64-.._ si, mt apo"n cant s Issaes Untm Impact rpamted ER#64-03 Mitigation Inco outside of the 20-foot creek setback line at all times unless an exception for such construction has been approved by the Community Development Department. The creek setback line shall be established by the City's Natural Resource Manager and marked in the field. The setback area shall be fenced with orange construction fencing,and shall be in place prior to the beginning of construction and throughout the duration of construction. b) Replacement of the bridge and associated improvements crossing the creek shall require permits from the Department of Fish and Game unless otherwise exempted from such review. The bridge design shall be a clear- span bridge as provided in the conceptual plans. c) Paved vehicular parking areas shall not be allowed within the creek setback area. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a _X_ historic resource?(See CEQA Gu idefines 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? C.A. Singer & Associates, a qualified archeology firm, performed a phase 1 surface examination of the property and a research of historic records associated with the site and vicinity. The property was not known to contain any known historic resources or former historic structures. The site does contain two residences, one of which appears to be representative of early to mid 1920's construction, a California Bungalow. The residence is not considered a contributing historic residence and research of City records has not revealed any significant information about the residence or site. The residence is not shown on the City's historic resource maps, and is absent from early records of the area. It is possible that the house could have been moved to this property following its original construction date, however no records exist to support this. At this time the residence does not meet the minimum criteria for nomination to the California Register of Historic Resources. The archeologist, however recognized the residence as a potentially historic resource and recorded the property with the State Department of Parks and Recreation as historic property P40-041146(See attached archeological study). The former known use of this property and surrounding vicinity is grazing. As is common with sites adjacent to creeks, the site may contain archeological resources associated with Native Americans. No known archeological sites exist on or adjacent to the project site. No known paleontological sites exist within the project site or vicinity. The site contains geologic features that consist of serpentine rock and shallow soils. The areas containing extensive serpentine rock are within the slopes above the proposed building sites. No significant impacts are anticipated to occur to existing geologic features. Mitigation Measures: Cultural Resources a) During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface•testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. b) Prior to removing or demolishing the existing residence at the property, all provisions of the City's Building Demolition and Relocation codes shall be utilized. This may include a 90-day notice advertised in a local newspaper offering the existing residence for re-location. i/ :CrrY of SAN alts Oetspo 10 INmAL Snrov ENvtrtoNMENrAt_CHEcKLesr 2004 � ,T7 Issues, Discussion and Suppor' .7ormation Sources soup Pot,- Poc�nauy xo Bridge Street Project GP/RfrR 64 si int significant Int 9 ER#64-03 t'-"`4 onim io>�t Mifigation Inco razed 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted eneigy conwvadon plans? b) Use non renewable resources in a wasteful Arid inefficient --X-- manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral'resource that would would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? This project is a proposal to construct a "sustainable" housing development designed to conserve water, energy, and other natural resources. The proposed project does not conflict with the City's energy conservation plan and the project incorporates energy conserving features such as solar energy sources and energy efficiept building materials. No known mineral resources are known to the project site or immediate vicinity. No impacts to energy and mineral resources are anticipated. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOUS. Would theproject: a) .-Lxposepeople of structures to potential&ub *adveiae effects,including including risk of loss,inor death involving : L Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the -_X_-- most recent Alquist Paolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?_ H. Strong seismic ground shaking? _X-- III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? —X— IV. Landslides or mudflows? —X— b), Result in substantW soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? = X- c) Belocated on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that -X- would become unstable as a result of the project;and potentially result mi on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Mle 18-D,of of the. -X Uniform Building Code(1994),"creatuig substantial asks to rife -or ro - - - _ The project is located at the base of the South Street Hills. At this location, surface soils are thin and the ground surface consists of exposed serpentine rock outcroppings between sparsely vegetated surface soil areas. There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zoae 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. The project is not likely to result in the loss of topsoil or substantial erosion since no significant grading is proposed in order to construct the future home sites. Moderately expansive soils are common in the project vicinity. All new construction will require a City building permit, and therefore require construction that will meet or exceed building code standards for these soils. The City's Safety Element map,Figure 5,page 14 identifies an area of potential landslide risk above the proposed homesites. Although no slide evidence exists on this site, the property is subject to review and recommendations by an engineer who specializes in geotechnical investigations. A geotechnical investigation prepared by a State registered engineering geologist has been prepared with consideration of the potential landslide risk. The report was prepared by GSI soils Inc.on September 9, 2004 and identifies proposed mitigation measures for ensuring the appropriate placement of residential structures as proposed on the development plan.The report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the en ' eer's recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The engineers recommendations Ain CrrY of Sm4 Luis Osispo 11 INmaL STUDY ENmoNMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Issues, Discussion and Support' ormation Sources Sources Po-- Powntiany No Bridge Street Project GP&PrR 64-,_. Si Int significant s-C ll5ipaf1 9 w..ex Unless tmpaa ER#64-03 mitigation Incorporatod include retaining walls at the rear of homesites adjacent to the hillside in addition to specific measures for building pad construction and foundation design. As proposed, the project is not likely to create significant impacts to area geology or soils when the geotechnical engineers recommendations are incorporated into the project plans. Mitigation Measures: Geology and Soils 1. The recommendations of the engineering geotechnical report prepared by GSI Soils on September 9, 2004 shall be incorporated into the project unless superior design alternatives are approved by the City Public Works Director subject to approval of a State registered geotechnical engineer. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r( 'ect: a)' 'aeate.asignificaptliaTard to the puhl%c,or#heenvironment X-= througl $e routine use,transport OrAisposal of bazard' i�: �t'eate:a-sigmficaathazard fo:ihe pn$lia"or tlt�envunnmei►t throtiglrreacoitably for eseeable upset and accident conditions ineolvi tg the release of hazardous materials.unto the: .'. errviionment7 tg)- Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or,acutely 7{- hazardous materials,substances,orwaste within ohe-quartet mire of,an;existing orproposed.school? :4) ;E.Vose people or structures to.existing sources of hazardous =_X_-- emissions orhazacdous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? i*-`W locate dii a site which is included'oh a fist of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section - 65962.5'and,as,a result;itwould create a significaaut'hazard to „ th��tltiTc or tie enyuonmeii[? tf�`.. Frorglirgjecf fixated wigiisap attport iattdu§e plazy,or within ttvo esof,apdblic anpoi-4 would'the pibj ect tesult,id a safety .ligzardlbi the people residing or wor!dng 9n the project area? .' . air.implemenion of,opbysicatly iitterfesewith; ada ted�m n use fan ed,p . ._ erge cyresjio : pergencyevacuaton per? 71 fi) Exposepeople or structures to a significant.dslt of lose,injury,,', .X or death;juYolving wildland*Tiresi including where wildlands-are ad' i to urbil z *eas or where resideuts_are mteimixFd: with wildlands? The project proposal does not involve hazardous materials or hazardous conditions. The project involves a land use change, planned development subdivision and the development of a residential housing project and additional commercial units. A portion of the project is proposed to be constructed adjacent to an existing manufacturing building currently utilized for small scale manufacturing of building materials. Less than significant impacts are likely to occur since the manufacturing use does not involve significant quantities of hazardous materials and the use does not produce significant emissions. Furthermore,the units that are proposed in the vicinity of the manufacturing building will be commercial units. Proposed residential units are located a minimum of 300 feet away from the existing manufacturing building. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a r;�idla6,0_1 Y water;4- sta_ ndards r..,�i ,� .. Vii.. :`.a,w �'.v; 'F R �• I jC �� CRY OF SAN LUIS Oetspo 12 INRIAL STUDY ENvutoHmENTAL CHFcq.6T 2004 Issues, Discussion and Suppor►' ,iformation Sources sources �y Potenfay L9 Bridge Street Project GP/RITR 64-t,- sis Ant significant St mcm lqu ER#64-03 Issues Unless hnpact Mitigation Incorporaw s bstatitially with grotmdwateF recharge finch;flier there wouldte a'net deficit in aquifer.volume or a lo**g of the focal groundwater table level(e g.The production rate of pm-existing.' nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land toes 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? ie) Substantialty alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding ; onsite or offsW f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on =X' aFederal Flood hazard Boundary or Flood insurance Rate Map - or other flood hazard delineation map? . g) Place within a I00-year flood hazard area structures which -X_ would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into ground or surface waters? J) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, _temperature.rature.dissolved oxygen.or turbidity? The project site is within an area designated as a 100-year flood plain(Zone AO,area of shallow flooding with a 2 foot depth) on the City of San Luis Obispo Flood Insurance Rate Map. A Preliminary Flood Impact Analysis and a comparison of pre- development and post-development flood levels has been prepared for the project. The comparison analysis demonstrates that the post-development flood levels will not be impacted by the proposed project The complete text of the flood analysis prepared on August 26,2004 is available in the project file. As required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board the project will be required to utilize Best Management Practices in handling site drainage and runoff. An on-site drainage basin will be provided to handle the existing site drainage. Proposed house plans will contain individual water catchment basins that are designed to accommodate roof drainage for future on-site irrigation. The project proposes to utilize alternative paving materials for roads and paths to allow increased site percolation. A drainage and hydrology study has been prepared to identify how the site development will accommodate existing and developed site drainage. Mitigation Measures: Hydrology and Water Quality 1. All site drainage shall be directed towards the public right of way or on site private drainage systems unless other provisions are approved by the City. 2. Driveways, parking areas or private streets shall be constructed of pervious materials such as turf block to enhance on-site water percolation. 3. Commercial structures on sites 1-8 shall be designed so as not to impede floodwaters through the use of open carports or other design features that will not block potential floodwaters. 4. All development shall comply with the City's latest edition of the Flood Management Prevention Guidelines. �0 CFTY OF SAN Luis Oetspo 13 INmAL STUDY ENviRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2004 �� Issues, Discussion and Support' tformation Sources sources Po# ,y Potentiauy Bridge Street Project GP/RfM 64- SiL int significant !bnplA&tiption ER#64-03 �'MuD� aa Inco sated 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict withapplicable laird 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 conservation lens? The majority of the development site is zoned for manufacturing uses as identified within the City's General Plan. The hillside is within the Conservation/Open Space district and will remain so with the proposed project. A minor adjustment of the development limit line (form 175 foot contour up to 185 foot contour) will slightly reduce the size of the existing open space zone. Additional open space easements will be added to the project however to further promote the preservation of the sensitive hillside areas. ' The proposed project will change the land use pattern to allow residential development instead of manufacturing for a portion of the property. Adjacent uses, consisting of medium and low-density housing, and commercial office uses would be considered compatible with planned homes. A portion of the project is adjacent to a Manufacturing business that specializes in metal works. This portion of the proposed project,however,will also be developed as a commercial project. Commercial uses are clearly separated from residential uses by the existing site topography and a drainage Swale. The proposed residential use does not conflict with any known habitat conservation plan or applicable land use plan,and is in fact a lower intensity use than the current Manufacturing designation allows. Amending the land use plan to allow housing instead of manufacturing is likely to reduce site impacts associated with future development at this location. The addition of affordable housing will help to reduce the City's Jobs/Housing imbalance. No impacts to Land Use and Planning are anticipated. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable'noise —X— levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Norse 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 X_- ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a projedt located within an airport land use plan,or within =X= two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the prgject expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project is not anticipated to expose persons to unacceptable noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element. The proposed General Plan Amendment places housing adjacent to other residential areas and hillside open space. However, an existing manufacturing use will remain on Bridge Street, within approximately 300 feet of the nearest proposed residential unit. A noise study was performed for the project by an independent noise consultant(see attached noise study). The City's Noise Element recognizes the maximum residential noise exposure level as 50 dBA(Hourly LEQ)and 70 dBA as an overall peak maximum noise level. As measured from the nearest proposed residential property line, the noise analysis determined that the overall LDN noise for the nearest residential property to the existing commercial use would be 41 dBA. The report describes "sound levels in this location are characterized by the sound of wildlife from the undeveloped land to the south, and the manufacturing noise to the northwest from commercial activities on Bridge Street. Transportation noise levels are minimal to imperceptible at this location." The noise levels were measured over a 36-hour period and averaged to produce the 41 dBA. The noise analysis resulted in daytime measurements reaching as high as 42 dBA and nighttime noise was measured as low as 32 dBA. The analysis indicates that existing noise exposure to proposed residential `/ CnY OF SAN Luh Oaism 14 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEc14JST 2004 Issues, Discussion and Support" iformation Sources Sources P' -y Pommy Bridge Street Project GP/RfrR 64 SiL Ant significant SigmTieaiut ER#64-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated properties is less than significant. The consultant recommended a series of mitigation measures however to ensure that future expansion of manufacturing uses would not impact the proposed residential area. Following completion of site construction,the proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive noise levels. Other than short-term construction noise the completed project will not place residents within close proximity of excessive noise levels. Less than significant impacts to noise exposure is anticipated with proposed mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: Noise a) The south and east elevation of the commercial structure nearest the residential property shall have wall construction with an S.T.0 (Sound Transmission Class) rating of 30 greater. As an example, stucco exterior 2" x 6" stud walls with minimum R-13 batt insulation and two layers of W'gypsum board screwed to resilient strips on the interior will provide an STC rating of 30 or greater. All south and east facing windows of this commercial structure shall incorporate operable or sealed glazing assemblies that have an STC rating equal or greater than 30. b) Common acoustic leaks, such as electrical outlets, pipes, vents, ducts, flues and other breaks in the integrity of the wall,ceiling or roof construction on the east side of the commercial building nearest the residential property line and the residential unit on lot 2 shall receive special attention during construction. All construction openings and joints on the walls on the east side of the site shall be insulated,sealed and caulked with a resilient,non-hardening caulking material. All such openings and joints shall be airtight to maintain sound isolation. c) For the residential unit on lot 2, the soffit vents,eave vents,dormer vents and other wall and roof penetrations shall be located on the walls and roofs facing south and east away from commercial uses unless such penetrations have an STC rating of 30 or greater. Wall and window construction of the unit on lot 2 shall be designed to meet or exceed an STC rating of 30 or greater. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people _X_necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project will amend the City's General Plan, to allow housing on a site that is currently allocated for manufacturing uses. The proposed development plan will allow housing with densities equivalent to adjacent residential areas in this vicinity (12 units per net acre). A total of 16 residential lots are proposed on a 2.19 acre site. This amount of new housing. in combination with other known separate residential projects, is not considered substantial population growth, and is consistent with growth rates contained in the City's General Plan. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police Police protection? _X__ c) Schools? _X_ d) Parks? _X__ e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? —X— Other public facilities? _X_ 11e project will not create significant impacts to local public services since it is currently adjacent to a developed residential and manufacturing area of the City that is currently served by City utilities and associated infrastructure. The development of the project will require the installation of new water mains and sewer connections. The City Fire and Police Departments CRY OF SAN Luis Oeispo is INmAL STUDY Ew=NmENTAL CHEca.lsr 2004 —7' �� Issues, Discussion and Suppor' oformation Sources sources Po y PotentiallyNo Bridge Street Project GP/RrM 64 Si ant significant S. Mwt 9 ER#64-03 �.M unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated have indicated that the new site can be served with adequate response times. The project will be subject to impact fees that will cumulatively offset any increased demands on roads and other public services. As discussed in the traffic section, the project will be subject to road improvements in order to create safe and adequate circulation to the site. 14.RECREATION. Would the projeck a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or —X- other recreational facilities such thatsubstantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X— expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse _ physical effect on the environment? The project will be constructed adjacent to City Open Space and nearby Meadow Park. A component of the project includes a trail that will link to other City Open Space trails. The subdivision of the property will be subject to Park In-Lieu fees that will offset any increase in facility use.No significant impacts to recreation facilities are anticipated. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the reject: 'a) Cause an increase in traffic which is stffi tandal in relation to fl ie --X- existing traffic load and capacity of the street.system? b) Exceeds dogr 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. fame equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? —X- e) Result is inadequate parldng capacityonsite or.offsite? —X f) Conflict-with adopted policies supporting alternative —X= transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land —X_ Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, orathan e.in air,traffic `erns? The project will introduce 16 residential lots and 8 commercial units to a site that is currently a single parcel with 2 single- family residences. A new access driveway developed to City Standards will provide site access to the residential lots from Bridge Street. Bridge Street is developed to current City standards. The new driveway serving the project will include a new bridge crossing at the existing creek near Bridge Street. The project proposes on site parking for each residence in addition to an adequate visitor parking facilities. Bicycle parking is proposed in bike benches throughout the site. A bicycle bench is simply a metal bench with metal slats wide enough to secure a bicycle tire within the seat portion of the bench. The City Fire Department has reviewed the proposed access to the site and agrees that the proposed development will result in adequate emergency access. The proposed project site is outside of the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan area. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the roect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable -X— Regional Water Quality Control Board? JJ) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water. X-- tre4trient;waste water treatment,.water quality control;Nt stotm.. drainage heilities:the'constrtiction of which could cause' rd cant eh*onmental effects?: CITY OF SAN Luis Oatspo 16 INmAL STUDY ENMONMENTAL CHECKusT 2004 ' '7 -8'3 Issues, Discussion and Support" ..rormation Sources sources rrr _> Potendayh l 9 Bridge Street Project GPAM 64-._ Si,. Ant significant si=c ER#64-03 M°" Unim pct Mitigation Incorpozated 0 -Have sufficient•water supplies,availabie to serve theproject ' -ax- `from existing.entitlement$and resources,or are'p*and expanded water resoutces.needed? *... T. d) :Result in a determination byti a wastewater freatment provider _-X-- which serves'or may serve the projectilai it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted.capacity to -X- accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations __X_ related to solid waste? The City currently has water to allocate,and does so on a"first-come,first-served"basis. A water allocation is required,due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a per residential basis. Section 13.08.130B of the Municipal Code states that no polluted water may be discharged to a drainage system that flows to any creek or to the City storm drain system. Typically, mitigation measures are necessary to prevent polluted discharge. However,the proposed residences are designed to capture water in individual catchment basins that will satisfactorily mitigate potential impacts. In Summary the project is anticipated to create less than significant impacts to utilities and service systems when the site is developed consistent with City standards and in accordance with code requirements recommended by the City Utilities Department. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) -Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-- spstonieg levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal .community;r6duce=the number or-restrict the ragge df a rar*a or .. endangered plantor animal or eliariirate important examples of- , _ _thenW­okpenods ofCafif6Wihisto ,ox:' rchiAo"?__ N/A b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but -X- t- cumulatively considerable? C'Cumulatively considetgble", Means that the.inciieniental effects of a prgjecca e�considerable' when viewed in connection with the effdcts of'the past projects, the effects of other current projects;and the effects of probable futureprojects) N/A 'c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause __X__ substantialadverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? N/A Crrr of SAN Luis 08ispo 17 INMAL STUDY ENvtaor mEmAL tHEcKusr 2004 -7 g_y ' Attachment 9 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier,anal 's ma be used v+i 4e, ' _ -. yst y pursuapt fo the tiering;programM or other CEQA process,one or more effects have beep adequately analyzed in.an earlier EIR':or Negative Declarafth. Section L5063(c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following itents: a Earlier anal sis used Iden earlier anal and state inhere the 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 mitintion measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,July 2002 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation Element,July 1973 6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,Aril 1981 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996 8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database 11. Site Visit 12. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 13. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dirp]FMMP/ 14. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District, 1995 15. Comparison of predevelopment and postdevelopment flood levels prepared by Keith Crowe August 26,2004 16. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996 17. 2001 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Re rt 18. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 19. Phase I archeology C.A.Singer and associates,Inc.August 20,2003 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 Map(Community 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 28. On site Noise study performed by David Lord,March 2004 29. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GSI Soils Inc.September 9,2004 �0I 1 Issues, Discussion and Support' ..orrnation Sources soorm Por- Potentially (ll®ol 9 Sit nt significant significant Impact Uess Revised Initial Study GP/RrrR/EA 64-03 in"`4 Miu�tion impact 215 Bridge Street incorporated rated 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. REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Aesthetics Mitigation Measures:Aesthetics 1. New construction above the 175-foot contour shall be limited to a 25-foot maximum height limit. 2. Existing willow trees and blackberry brambles at the north boundary of the site shall remain in place and be protected during all phases of site construction. Grading limitations, raised foundations, and careful placement of the structures. shall accommodate the existing topography and vegetation. Other trees shall remain on site unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department and the City Arborist for removal. 3. If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare shall be required, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. 4. Reflective roofing materials shall not be allowed unless proven that the reflective material will not produce off site glare to neighboring residential properties or the public right of way. 5. Site development shall be restricted to building footprints shown on the development plan as approved by City Council. All areas above the 185-foot contour within the remainder parcel shall be deed restricted with a private open space easement. The easement shall restrict further development of this property and define allowed uses such as passive recreational paths, landscape and drainage maintenance and necessary fire fuel management. The existing residence, garage and driveway, including a 25-foot radius around the existing development shall be exempt from the required deed restriction. 6. The existing blackberry brambles and associate drainage swale shall remain in place and a preservation easement shall be recorded across the proposed lots for these features. The easement shall specify allowed rises and shall not allow grading, construction or removal of vegetation unless necessary for fire fuel management or City approved drainage improvements. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a required setbacks and site dimensions. Compliance with the site plan shall be verified through construction plan check and site review. A lighting photometric plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department as part of the construction plan check. An examination of installed lighting will be analyzed prior to occupancy of the site. A final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the construction plan check. Installed landscape will be reviewed prior to occupancy release. Air Quality 7. The following mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution associated with grading and construction of the site. These mitigation measures are required at the start and maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity. 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. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENYIRONMENT%LL CHECKLIST 2004 �7 X lL Issues, Discussion and Suppor ormation Sources sooRa �— y rotenuany L&AtUdt I I I Mij I I L 9 S. ,ant significant significant Impact rssues Unim bnpact Revised Initial Study GP/R/TR/ER 64-03 Mitigation 215 Bridge Street Incorporated 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 isnot 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 v$cuum 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 8. All construction activities including grading, vegetation removal, stockpiling, equipment storage etc. shall remain outside of the 20-foot creek setback line at all times unless an exception for such construction has been approved by the Community Development Department. The creek setback line shall be established by the City's Natural Resource Manager and marked in the field. The setback area shall be fenced with orange construction fencing, and shall be in place prior to the beginning of construction and throughout the duration of construction. 9. Replacement of the bridge and associated improvements crossing the creek shall require permits from the Department of Fish and Game unless otherwise exempted from such review. The bridge design shall be a clear-span bridge as provided in the conceptual plans. 10. Paved vehicular parking areas shall not be allowed within the creek setback area. Monitoring Program: Prior to release of City construction permits,the riparian areas shall be inspected for fencing and erosion control protection. A separate permit shall be secured by the Department of Fish and Game and other applicable agencies prior to issuance of a City construction permit that allows work within or over the creek area. Cultural Resources 11. During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. 12. Prior to removing or demolishing the existing residence at the property, all provisions of the City's Building Demolition and Relocation codes shall be utilized. 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. Crtr OF SAN tuts Owspo 20 1wnAL StuDtr ENvutoNmENrAL CnEcKus7 2004 � , 8� Issues, Discussion and Support ,Yormation Sources Sources Por iy Potentially t 9 Si; art Significant S= tmPact Revised Initial Study GP/R/TR/ER 64-03 Mitiig�on > t 215 Bridge Street Incorp�ted Geology and Soils 13. The recommendations of the engineering geotechnical report prepared by GSI Soils on September 9, 2004 shall be incorporated into the project unless superior design alternatives are approved by the City Public Works Director subject to approval of a State registered geotechnical engineer. Monitoring Program: The engineering geotechnical report recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans to be submitted for construction permits. The applicable construction methods shall be incorporated into the final - project and inspected as part of the building inspection process during construction. Hydrology and Water Quality 14. 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. 15. Driveways, parking areas or private streets shall be constructed of pervious materials such as turf block to enhance on-site water percolation. 16. Commercial structures on sites 1-8 shall be designed so as not to impede floodwaters through the use of open carports or other design features that will not block potential floodwaters. 17. All development shall comply with the City's latest edition of the Flood Management Prevention Guidelines. Monitoring Program: Construction plans,including a grading and drainage plan, shall reflect direction of drainage and identify any proposed detention or retention. Pervious paving materials (where used) shall be shown on the construction plans. Drainage systems and applicable installations shall be incorporated into the site prior to final inspection. Noise 18. The south and east elevation of the commercial structure nearest the residential property shall have wall construction with an S.T.0 (Sound Transmission Class) rating of 30 greater. As an example, stucco exterior 2" x 6" stud walls with minimum R-13 batt insulation and two layers of W' gypsum board screwed to resilient strips on the interior will provide an STC rating of 30 or greater. All south and east facing windows of this commercial structure shall incorporate operable or sealed glazing assemblies that have an STC rating equal or greater than 30. 19. Common acoustic leaks, such as electrical outlets, pipes, vents, ducts, flues and other breaks in the integrity of the wall, ceiling or roof construction on the east side of the commercial building nearest the residential property line and the residential unit on lot 2 shall receive special attention during construction. All construction openings and joints on the walls on the east side of the site shall be insulated, sealed and caulked with a resilient, non-hardening caulking material. All such openings and joints shall be airtight to maintain sound isolation. 20. For the residential unit on lot 2, the.soffit vents, eave vents, dormer vents and other wall and roof penetrationsshall be located on the walls and roofs facing south and east away from commercial uses unless such penetrations have an STC rating of 30 or greater. Wall and window construction of the unit on lot 2 shall be designed to meet or exceed an STC rating of 30 or greater. �j� Crnr OP Saw Luis OBm o 21 Iwrrwt.STuov ENmoNmEw AL CHEgNST 2004 Issues, Discussion and Support'" formation Sources Sources FG Potentially 9 sq rttt Significant Significant Impact Revised Initial Stu GP/RfrR/ER 64-03 ►s'"a Unless trttpaet Mitigation 215 Bridge Street incorporated Monitoring Program: A noise disclosure shall be recorded on the deeds of subject properties, along with the Final Subdivision Map, prior to final inspection of the construction. Plans for sound attenuation, shall be provided on the final construction drawings. All such improvements shall be completed prior to final inspection. Attachment 1: Vicinity Map . Attachment 2: Reduced scale project plans. Attachment 3: Applicant's design statement Attachment 4: Phase 1 archeology C.A. Singer and associates, Inc. August 20, 2003 Attachment 5: Noise Study performed by David Lord, March 4, 2004 r Crry of Sart buts OstsPo 22 Irtmu STuov Envlaorteet:rrral.CHEcKuST 2004 P 1 Attachment 10 RESOLUTION NO. -04 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING AND OPEN SPACE TO MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE AND ADJUSTING THE DEVELOPMENT LIMIT LINE TO THE 185-FOOT CONTOUR FOR PROPERTY AT 215 BRIDGE STREET GP/R/ER 64-03 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 27, 2004 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/ER 64-03, Bridge Street Corporation, applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 7, 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 has considered the draft mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff; BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. Amendment of the General Plan Map from Manufacturing to Medium Density Residential is consistent with the General Plan text policies that encourage the preservation and expansion of existing residential neighborhoods. 2. The size, shape and location of the property is not conducive to a manufacturing land use since the property is separated from other manufacturing areas by a creek and the site is too close to sensitive hillsides and an existing residential neighborhood. 3. The Medium-Density Residential land use designation is appropriate for this site since it allows a transition between the existing manufacturing designation and hillside open space. 4. A Medium-Density Residential land use is appropriate for the site and compatible with the land use pattern of adjacent properties along Exposition Drive. 5. Allowing the land use amendment will implement the City's Housing Element Policies that encourage sustainable and affordable housing projects. 6. The amended development limit line location is consistent with hillside planning text policies that are designed to protect scenic vistas and allow adequate distribution of public services such as water sewer and fire protection. 7. The amended location will not significantly alter the aesthetic value of the property, affect sensitive resources or place structures within a hazardous location. 8. The new development limit line allows for the property to be developed consistent with GPR 64-0312-07-2004 Attachment 10 Resolution No. XXXX-04 Page 2 the adjacent neighborhood and allows for the preservation of sensitive hillside areas. 9. The adjustment of the development limit line allows housing to be built in a safe and reasonable location as justified by the geotechnical and flood analyses prepared for the project. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council does hereby adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. Aesthetics 1. New construction above the 175-foot contour shall be limited to a 25-foot maximum height limit. 2. Existing willow trees and blackberry brambles at the north boundary of the site shall remain in place and be protected during all phases of site construction. Grading limitations, raised foundations, and careful placement of the structures shall accommodate the existing topography and vegetation. Other trees shall remain on site unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department and the City Arborist for removal. 3. If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare shall be required, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. 4. Reflective roofing materials shall not be allowed unless proven that the reflective material will not produce off site glare to neighboring residential properties or the public right of way. 5. Site development shall be restricted to building footprints shown on the development plan as approved by City Council. All areas outside the development limit line shall be deed restricted with a private open space easement. The easement shall restrict further development of this property and define allowed uses such as passive recreational paths, landscape and drainage maintenance and necessary fire fuel management. The existing residence, garage and driveway, including a25-foot radius around the existing development shall be exempt from the required deed restriction. 6. The existing blackberry brambles and associated drainage swale shall remain in place and a preservation easement shall be recorded across the proposed lots for these features. The easement shall specify allowed uses and shall not allow grading, construction or removal of vegetation unless necessary for fire fuel management or City approved drainage improvements. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a required setbacks and site dimensions. Compliance with the site plan shall be verified through construction plan check and site review. A lighting photometric plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department as part of the construction plan check. An examination of installed lighting will be analyzed prior to occupancy of the site. A final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the construction plan check. Installed landscape will be reviewed prior to occupancy release. GPR 64-0312-07-2004 �;' Attachment 10 Resolution No. XXXX-04 Page 3 Air Quality 7. The following mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution associated with grading and construction of the site. These mitigation measures are required at the start and maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity. 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 8. All construction activities including grading, vegetation removal, stockpiling, equipment storage etc. shall remain outside of the 20-foot creek setback line at all times unless an exception for such construction has been approved by the Community Development Department. The creek setback line shall be established by the City's Natural Resource Manager and marked in the field. The setback area shall be fenced with orange construction fencing, and. shall be in place prior to the beginning of construction and throughout the duration of construction. 9. Replacement of the bridge and associated improvements crossing the creek shall require permits from the Department of Fish and Game unless otherwise exempted from such review. The bridge design shall be a clear-span bridge as provided in the conceptual plans. 10. Paved vehicular parking areas shall not be allowed within the creek setback area. 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 �� G GPR 64-03 12-07-2004 _. Resolution No. XXXX-04 Attachment 10 Page 4 Game and other applicable agencies prior to issuance of a City construction permit that allows work within or over the creek area. Cultural Resources 11. During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. 12. Prior to removing or demolishing the existing residence at the property, all provisions of the City's Building Demolition and Relocation codes shall be utilized. 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. Geology and Soils 13.The recommendations of the engineering geotechnical report prepared by GSI Soils on September 9, 2004 shall be incorporated into the project unless superior design alternatives are approved by the City Public Works Director subject to approval of a State registered geotechnical engineer. Monitoring Program: The engineering geotechnical report recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans to be submitted for construction permits. The applicable construction methods shall be incorporated into the final project and inspected as part of the building inspection process during construction. Hydrology and Water Quality 14. 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. 15. Driveways, parking areas or private streets shall be constructed of pervious materials such as turf block to enhance on-site water percolation. 16. Commercial structures on sites 1-8 shall be designed so as not to impede floodwaters through the use of open carports or other design features that will not block potential floodwaters. 17. All development shall comply with the City's latest edition of the Flood Management Prevention Guidelines. 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 / v GPR 64-03 12-07-2004 Resolution No. XXXX-04 Attachment 10 Page 5 shown on the construction plans. Drainage systems and applicable installations shall be incorporated into the site prior to final inspection. Noise 18. The south and east elevation of the commercial structure nearest the residential property shall have wall construction with an S.T.0 (Sound Transmission Class) rating of 30 greater. Asanexample, stucco exterior 2" x 6" stud walls with minimum R-13 batt insulation and two layers of Ih" gypsum board screwed to resilient strips on the interior will provide an STC rating of 30 or greater. All south and east facing windows of this commercial structure shall incorporate operable or sealed glazing assemblies that have an STC rating equal or greater than 30. 19. Common acoustic leaks, such as electrical outlets, pipes, vents, ducts, flues and other breaks in the integrity of the wall, ceiling or roof construction on the east side of the commercial building nearest the residential property line and the residential unit on lot 2 shall receive special attention during construction. All construction openings and joints on the walls on the east side of the site shall be insulated, sealed and caulked with a resilient, non-hardening caulking material. All such openings and joints shall be airtight to maintain sound isolation. 20. For the residential unit on lot 2, the soffit vents, eave vents, dormer vents and other wall and roof penetrations shall be located on the walls and roofs facing south and east away from commercial uses unless such penetrations have an STC rating of 30 or greater. Wall and window construction of the unit on lot 2 shall be designed to meet or exceed an STC rating of 30 or greater. Monitoring Program: A noise disclosure shall be recorded on the deeds of subject properties, along with the Final Subdivision Map, prior to final inspection of the construction. Plans for sound attenuation, shall be provided on the final construction drawings. All such improvements shall be completed prior to final inspection. SECTION 3. Adoption. 1. The Land Use Map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A. 2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in documents, which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing and use. GPR 64-03 12-07-2004 Attachment 10 Resolution No. XXXX-04 Page 6 On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of , 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Audrey Hooper APPROVED AS TO FORM: Utrttorney Jonathan Lowell G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\GPR 64-03 Bridge Street PD\New submittal 2004\CC Reso GPR 64-03.doc !1 EXHIBIT A r7i achment 10 ED LlSOdX3 CL CO co u u CL 0 r4 .14 ow a) co Mw E 2 Lij cl ir 8338 LO 0 co Attachment 11 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. (2004 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT 215 BRIDGE STREET FROM M AND C/OS-5 TO R-2-PD AND M-PD GP/R/ER 64-03 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 27,.2004 and recommended approval of amendments to the Zoning Map to allow the residential and commercial Planned Development; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 7, 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 rezoning is consistent with the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the property as described in a separate resolution approving the General Plan Map amendments and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan text policies, and implements Housing Element goals by allowing expansion of residential land uses. 2. The project complies with all applicable provisions of these Zoning Regulations other than those modified by the PD rezoning.. 3. The approved modifications to the development standards of these Zoning Regulations are necessary and appropriate to accommodate the superior design of the proposed project including its compatibility with adjacent land uses, its successful mitigation of environmental impacts, and its proposed affordable housing features, sustainable building concepts and proposed open space easements.. 4. The project will be reviewed by the City's Architectural Review Commission for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines prior to approval. 5. All affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. 6. The location, size, site planning, building design features, and operating characteristics of the project are highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood, and will be compatible with the character of the site, and the land uses and development intended for the surrounding neighborhood by the General Plan. - -97 � I Attachment 11 Ordinance No.(2003 Series) GP/R 64-03 Page 2 7. The site is adequate for the project in terms of size, configuration topography, and other applicable features (as conditioned), 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. 8. 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. 9. Tandem parking is a logical parking design solution for some of the units since the tandem parking spaces will be for the exclusive use of the occupants of each unit supplying the tandem parking. 10. The project meets the mandatory Planned Development findings (Section 17:62.045) since the design of the structures will achieve a minimum of'30 percent greater energy efficiency than minimum required by California Code of Regulations Title 24; and the project will preserve, enhance, and/or create a significant natural feature with minimum area of one-half acre (the hillside with substantial serpentine rock formations and an existing blackberry bramble below the development will be protected with a conservation open space easement). SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby recommends adoption of said Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the request (GP/R/TR/ER 64-03) for a Rezoning; amending the Zoning map from Manufacturing and Open Space to Medium Density Residential Planned Development and Manufacturing Planned Development for a portion of the property below the 185-foot contour(as identified within Exhibit A). 1. The applicant shall submit a detailed development agreement that confirms the design of the project as reviewed by Community Development Staff with the application concept. The agreement shall outline the sustainable components of the project, the design and placement of the buildings and associated improvements. 2. The sustainable site and building features are required features of the Planned Development, and amendments to the development features including, but not limited to a substantial change to the site plan or sustainable design features, shall require an amendment to the Planned Development to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. Within 6 months of City Council approval the applicant shall prepare and submit a final development plan to the Community Development Director consistent with Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.62.060. -f Attachment 11 Ordinance No.(2003 Series) GP/R 64-03 Page 3 4. All conditions approved with TR 64-03 under separate resolution shall apply to this Rezoning Ordinance. SECTION 3. 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 7th day of December, 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM: �_a o tomey Jonathan Lowell G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\GPR 64-03 Bridge Street PD\New submittal 2004\CC draft rez Ord 64-03.doc —I' 1 EXHIBIT A IP RA\ W I' BRIDGE i rt -M - U -2-PD 66 - E/.OS 5 r 77 r , _. r City owned-Open Space ^ r r Note: this map is intended for reference only and is not to scale. The boundary of the medium density residential district is intended to follow the 185 foot contour and an accurate map will be created upon adoption of an ordinance to re-zone the property. Attachment 12 RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2560 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 215 BRIDGE STREET TR 64-03 (TRACT 2560) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo recommended approval of Application TR/ER 64-03, a Planned Development subdivision with 22 lots, and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration at a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 27th, 2004; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the project and considered public testimony at a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 7, 2004; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: A. Subdivision Findings 1. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Map for Medium Density Residential because each dwelling has access to a satisfactory private open space area and the development would occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the Medium Density Residential zone. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under- developed site that is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way and is close to the public transit and associated services. 3. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood and there are existing roadways and services available to serve the development in accordance with City --7 I ER/TR 64-03 Attachment 12 215 Bridge Street 12-07-04 standards. 4. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, .is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site contains provisions to preserve and protect the creek, and sensitive hillside areas to maintain significant or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish and wildlife. 5. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the development is of a similar scale to surrounding development. Additionally, new construction will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 6. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist. 7. The Mitigated Negative Declaration. for the project (GPR 64-03) adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated with this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. B. Creek Setback Exception Findings for replacement clear span bridge 1. The location and design of the new clear span bridge will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. 2. The exception will not limit the city's design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies. 3. The exception to allow the new bridge will enhance safe vehicular access for the property and allow a circulation plan that complies with the City's flood regulations. 4. The exception will not prevent the implementation of city-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans. 5. 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 if the bridge were not constructed. 6. 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. 7. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream. 8. Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project; and 9. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. Page 2 ERITR 64-03 Attachment 12 215 Bridge Street 12-07-04 C. Findings to allow a 10% parking reduction 1. Since the commercial project will be developed as a condominium plan, with attached ownership units sharing a common parking area, a shared parking plan and 10% parking reduction is a logical solution to improve vehicular access and increase site design options. 2. A 10% parking reduction will allow additional space for a vehicle turn-around area and allow development to be shifter further from the existing creek. 3. A 10% parking reduction will reduce the parking requirement by only three spaces and is therefore not likely to result in off-site parking impacts. Section 2. Approval. The City Council does hereby approve of application TR 64-03, including a creek setback exception and a 10% parking reduction for the commercial condominium, 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 development plan to the Community Development Director consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section 17.62.060. 2. An affordable housing agreement consistent with the draft affordable housing proposal shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to proceeding to the Architectural Review Commission, following approval of the applicable entitlements by the City Council. 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 by the City Council. 4. The project shall be developed with sustainable construction features as identified (or comparable to) exhibits and testimony provided by the applicant. These features include, energy and water conservation methods, attention to preservation of native site conditions, and recyclable construction materials. 5. At least 50% of the common driveway and private outdoor driveway areas shall be designed with pervious surfaces such as turf block or a similar pervious surface to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the City Public Works division. 6. A common address sign shall be placed at the driveway intersection with Bridge Street. Address sign shall list all unit addresses and shall be reviewed with architectural plans for consistency with the proposed subdivision and the existing neighborhood. 7. No parking or vehicular access for commercial tenants or customers shall be allowed within the residential area. A sign shall be posted at the south end of the commercial condominium to discourage commercial traffic from entering the residential area. Page 3 ER/1'R 64-03 Attachment 12 215 Bridge Street 12-07-04 8. No parking, paving, or site construction shall be allowed within the creek setback unless approved as part of the planned development as shown on the development plan. 9. A turn-around space, consistent with the required dimensions as shown within the City's Parking and Driveway standards shall be provided at the south end of the commercial property to allow vehicles to turn around and leave the site in a forward manner without entering the residential area. Appropriate signs and design features shall be installed in order to prevent vehicles from parking in the tum-around area. 10. The subdivider shall dedicate a public easement to allow pedestrian access through the site to a pathway that.links to City Open Space property. 11. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement for all property outside the development limit line, to perpetually preserve the property as private open space. The easement shall be written to prohibit grading, construction and land disturbance other than pedestrian pathways or native landscape. Erosion control devices and wildland fire vegetation control may be allowed within the open space easement. 12. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement to preserve the blackberry brambles and associated drainage swale north of lots 2 through 12. The easement shall prevent vegetation removal, grading, landscaping; and other site disturbance. 13. All site construction shall be limited to the footprints of the homesites shown on the approved final development plan. Additional site construction or changes to the site configuration shall be subject to review and approval of an amendment to the Planned Development. 14. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 15. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack,set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 16. The demolition of the existing residence shall be subject to the City's demolition and building relocation code and may be subject to a 90-day newspaper advertisement prior to demolition or removal. 17. The project shall be subject to Mitigation Measures approved with GPR 64-03 adopted by separate resolution. Page 4 -7 ���� ERYTR 64-03 Attachment 12 215 Bridge Street 12-07-04 Conditions and code requirements from other departments: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements maybe identified during the plan check process. Public Right-of-way 1. Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications (curbs, gutters & 2m sidewalks, full width street pavement, signing, striping, barricades, street lights, etc.). 2. A public improvement plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval. All grades, layout, staking and cut- sheets necessary for the construction of street paving and frontage improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. 3. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the Bridge Street frontage. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the.Bridge Street frontage. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 5. All proposed private streets shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and pavement design shall be based on a Traffic Index of 6.5. Water,Sewer & Utilities 6. The proposed on-site sewer main and water services will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. 7. Final grades and alignments of all water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 8. If a public water main is approved by the Utilities Department, the subdivider shall dedicate an easement for a public water system over all private streets or driveways, parking areas (including planters and raised medians) and common areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. If alternative paving materials (eg pavers, grass-crete ,etc) are used for the private street surfacing, the City will restore any water line repair with temporary asphalt pavement. It shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association to restore the private street to the desired Page 5 -I ERII'R 64-03 Attachment 12 215 Bridge Street 12-07-04 condition. 9. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public street frontage(s),to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. 10. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. Utilities to the all lots shall be underground. 11. The subdivider shall provide individual electrical, phone, television, natural gas, water service, and sewer connections to the approval of the affected utility companies and the. Public Works Director. Grading & Drainage 12.Final analysis and design of stormwater facilities shall be consistent with the Drainage Design Manual section of the City's Waterways Management Plan including but not limited to the following provisions: a. Post construction stormwater runoff rates shall not exceed the predevelopment runoff rates for the 2, 10 and 100 year 24-hour storm events. b. All proposed detention basin and drainage improvements, except those within a public street, shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and homeowners' association. c. All construction within the 100- year FEMA floodplain shall meet the following requirements per the Waterways Management Plan: 1. There shall be no significant net increase in up-stream or downstream floodwater surface elevations for the 100-year flood at General Plan build- out as a result of changes in floodplain configuration and building construction. A significant threshold of a 64 mm (2.5 in) increase in floodwater surface elevations or 0.1 m/s (0.3 f/s) increase in stream velocities shall be used. This shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and based on a final hydraulic analysis pursuant to the Drainage Design Manual. 2. There shall be no significant net decrease in floodplain storage volume as a result of a new development or redevelopment projects. This can be achieved by a zero-net fill grading plan, balancing all fill placed on the 100-year floodplain with cut taken from other portions of the floodplain within the project area of the application, or with cut exported off site. Specifically, all fill placed in a floodplain shall be balanced with an equal amount of soil material removal (cut) and shall not decrease floodplain Page 6 7 -/Oa ER/1'R 64-03 - ' Attachment 12 215 Bridge Street 12-07-04 storage capacity at any stage of a flood (2, 10, 50, or 100-year event). 3. All bridging, culverting and modifications to the existing creek channels must be in compliance with the City's Waterways Management—Drainage Design Manual (specifically regarding clear spanning of creeks, etc.) and be approved by the Public Works Director, Army Corp of Engineers, and Fish &Game. 4. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director; the City's Natural Resources Manager and the Dept. of Fish & Game. 5. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 13. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of one or more acre. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 14. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the SWRCB shall be included in the PIP set. The WDID Number issued by the SWRCB shall be noted on all plans that involve land disturbing activities. Mapping Requirements 15. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor in accordance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act, the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision City's Regulations. 16. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991.35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" - meters) for direct import into the Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier (model space in real world coordinates, NAD 83 - m). If you have any questions regarding format,please call prior to submitting electronic data. 17. The final map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English Page 7 ERaW 64-03 Attachment 12 215 Bridge Street 12-07-04 System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 18. Electronic files and stamped and signed drawings shall be submitted for all public improvement plans prior to map recordation or commencing with improvements, whichever occurs first. Submittal documents shall include the AutoCAD compatible drawing files and any associated plot files along with one original, stamped and signed, ink on mylar set of plans. 19. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans and record drawings, compatible with AutoCAD for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, in accordance with the City's Engineering Standards, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 20. The map shall be recorded prior to occupancy of any of the units. Otherwise, the map shall be processed as a condo conversion per Municipal Code Chapter 17.82. Utilities 21. It is necessary to be certain that all City facilities fall within proposed easements or property deeded to the City. The on-site water and sewer systems shall be privately owned and maintained. The on-site water and sewer mains shall be labeled on the plans as "Private". The existing single family residence located on the remainder parcel shall be included in the joint ownership and maintenance of the private on-site water and sewer lines. The joint ownership and maintenance responsibilities of all the owners shall be clearly described and explained in the homeowners' association agreement, bylaws, and/or CC&R's. 22. The tentative map shows a 6" water main serving the private on-site fire hydrants, but the location of the backflow preventer is not indicated. The backflow device shall be located adjacent to the private driveway, just outside the public right-of=way. The backflow device shall include a detector meter on the bypass, in accordance with City Standard 6420. The backflow configuration may include one or more fire department connections, as directed by the fire department. 23. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a"first-come, fust-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a per residential unit basis. 24. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well or other water source not under City control. Such water systems will be allowed to be used only on the property containing Page 8 7/0Y ER/I'R 64-03 Attachment 12 215 Bridge Street 12-07-04 the system, and no part of such a system will be allowed to cross over any property line. All backflow preventers shall be approved by the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research. The project shall be coordinated with the County Cross-Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. 25. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. 26. The project presents an opportunity to evaluate and upgrade the sewer lateral serving the existing residence on the remainder parcel, if needed. Most plumbers have the ability to produce a videotape of the inside of the sewer lateral. The Utilities Department can assist in reviewing the video and making recommendations for repair or replacement, as appropriate. As stated previously, the owner of the existing residence on the remainder parcel shall be included in the joint ownership and maintenance agreement, in order to tie into the proposed private sewer main running through the project. Street Trees 18. Removal of(1) one pine tree approved with the replanting of several unique and common landscape trees per. proposed landscape plan. All other existing trees to remain with a tree protection plan developed for creek and native trees to the satisfaction of the city arborist. One street tree required per 35 lineal feet of street frontage or any part thereof. 19. Street tree selection may need to be revised considering available space and planted to city standards. Natural Resources Manager 20. Slopes consist of serpentine rocks, likely to contain rare or threatened plant species. Rock outcrop on south side of project should be protected, and encroachments onto hillside should be kept to a minimum. 21. Drainage on north side of access to the existing house on the hillside is not a creek but is good quality wildlife habitat. Plan apparently calls for protecting this feature. Natural Resources staff supports such protection. Transportation 22. The final development plan shall provide a plan showing locations and dimensions of on site parking also noting covered vs. uncovered. 23. The final development plan shall describe and detail the bike bench concept. Page 9 ERITR 64-03 Attachment 12 215 Bridge Street 12-07-04 On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of , 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Audrey Hooper APPROVED AS TO FORM: orney Jonathan Lowell G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\GPR 6403 Bridge Street PD\New submittal 2004\CC RESO TR 64-03.doc Page 10 7 -//D r. Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 13 Allen Settle- Bridge Street From: "mjenny" <mjenny@charter.net> To: <dromero@slodty.org>, <asetde@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <cmulholl@slodty.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org> Date: 11/27/2004 8:46 PM Subject: Bridge Street I will be in Georgia and unable to attend Council meeting but wish to express some thoughts since I feel many would be adversely affected by the project:residents of the Meadow Park area, future residents of the Bridge Street Project if approved. and all SLO citizens who would lose open space. The Bridge Street Group suggests all previous concerns have been resolved however I do not agree. Drainage will still cause additional outflow to the drainage channel in Meadow Park and will potentially increase the risk of flooding to neighbors around Meadow Park and the cemetery,The six foot retaining wall to protect the units from the minimal land slide (only three feet) would cause purchasers of the units to wonder IF they were advised prior to purchase. There has been so much discussion about flooding, landslide, traffic, etc on this project if purchasers have problems will the City of SLO be subject to claims due to approving the project. Comparing building elevations in the Bridge Street Project with building elevations around Meadow Park does not seem valid since building around Meadow Park does not cut views of our beautiful South Hills open space.The project has much merit but it is the wrong location. The land which was open space purchased at the favorable cost is probably not qualified for most. development. It would be difficult to finance and bond if subdivision improvement bonds were required for completion of the new bridge construction and entrance road from Bridge Street which I understood was previously to be a road meeting city specifications for a public road . Alice Loh did not attend the last planning commission meeting but believe she previously commented the bridge should be higher because of possible flooding. If the entrance was obstructed the residences would be cut off from any emergency assistance. Don=t see any units as family housing with no fencing to protect children or family pets from the UPS, Federal Express, three trash trucks each week, visitors, cars being backed out of tandem parking, etc. No Oxygen deliveries as believe it will be investment property by owners for rentals for adults or college age students.The project may be over parked for families but not for the extra vehicles required for the four or more adult drivers in each house. I believe the eight work only units will become work- live or just live units as rental income units.. No kitchens is fine, but all it takes is a microwave and a small under counter refrigerator and then a couple of small electric appliances and you have a well equipped unit for a couple of adults with vehicles. Don=t believe there are any city regulations which say how long anyone can work in their unit. If they Awork@ late they can sleep in the unit. Project may then have a negative impact on the existing manufacturing on Bridge Street which provides employment for a number of people. To sum up it would seem the only thing different before the council this time is all the publicity this project has had in the last year since your decision. How many of the people writing articles or letters to the editors of the Tribune have walked the property, or listened on TV or attended meetings on the project. It is popular to give bad press to what I feel was a good decision by your Council last year after a very complete review of —7�// / file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW 100001.HTM 11/29/2004 Page 2 of 2 the facts. I listen to or tape for later listening most of your meetings and whatever your vote is on Dec 7 , I know you will do what you feel is best for the City of SLO. Sincerely, Mary A Jenny 2282 Exposition Drive, SLO 93401 file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM 11/29/2004 Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle-Bridge Street From: <Cindrichl®aol.com> To: <cmulholl@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org> Date: 11/23/2004 11:07 PM Subject: Bridge Street CC: <hfinger@calpoly.edu> Dear Ms. Mulholland and Mr. Settle: I hope this find you both well! As I am sure you are aware,the Bridge Street project is soon to pass your way again on December 7,2004. Prior to this meeting, Helene Finger and I were hoping to have the opportunity to meet with you both to briefly discuss our continued concerns about this project. We could meet you when and where it will be most convenient for you. Please let us know. Thank you! Gina Cindrich � -113 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 11/29/2004 i RECEIVED City Council NOV 2 4 2004 Please see attached a letter to the editor. S LO CITY CO U N D L j' Please do not submit to the political pressures that I know you are being subjected to regarding the Bridge Street project. The decision you made upon the first consideration was a good one(to deny the project). We all want affordable and sustainable housing but not in this location. The City will be subject to legal issues in perpetuity if this project is approved. The Exposition area floods and that is a fact. Water flows over the Exposition Street bridge every 4 years or so. The area"WILL" flood again but with the increased water flows to the creek as a result of the development the impact will be more damaging. All of the hydrology studies in the world with`what if' scenarios cannot refute the facts. The photos of that area flooding over and over again(over a period of 20 years or so in the photos) are undeniable. Can you imagine the courtroom.scenario: the plaintiff's attorney will ask the City, "where these photos provided to the City Council prior to their decision?""yes, they were"and the photos will be up on the big screen for all to see in the courtroom. There is no jury on the planet that will judge in favor of the City on this issue. The facts are irrefutable. The flooding is the most serious concern and I am sure you are aware of the others but here is a brief list: 1. Parking problems from both the lack of street parking on Bridge and tandem parking doesn't work. 2. The commercial units at the entrance will cause ingress and egress problems. 3. The road into the project is not wide enough 4. The hillside building issues, landslides, etc. 5. Impact on the Iron Works business next door. 6. Increased traffic with no "safe"access to either South or So. Higuera, i.e. no traffic signal to safely exit. The developer has not made material changes to the project to address these issues. Please once again deny this project. Who Butters Your Bread John Ewan should not participate in the vote regarding the Bridge Street project at the December 7 City Council meeting. Mr. Ewan clearly has a conflict of interest in this matter given the business he owns and operates, Pacific Energy Company(alternative energy). The"Green" community is very tight knit. If Mr. Ewan votes no on this project his livelihood will be significantly impacted, given the perception the Green community will have on him and his business-A similar example might be a fly fishing shop owner (and Council member) voting"for"a proposal to open a excellent fishing waterway to the public that fly fisherman in the area are in favor of. A vote"against"such a proposal would affect the shop owner's livelihood just as a vote against Bridge Street will affect Mr. Ewan's. I was told that it is each council member's responsibility to report any conflicts that they may have on a particular project and exclude themselves from votes where these conflicts exist. Here is a situation where this self policing has clearly failed. Had it not been for Mr. Ewan's exuberance about this project(for obvious reasons) it would not have been voted down"without prejudice", it would have just been voted down. The effort on his part to keep this project alive is a clear testimony and evidence of his serious conflict that exists with this vote. / YU y' 11 Talking Points for Proposed Tentative Tract 2560—City Council Meeting Robert Livick, P.E. 12%7%04.-: How does the project comply with the City flood policies? This project as proposed complies with both the City of San Luis Obispo's.Flood Damage prevention regulations/FEMA and the City's waterways Management plan FDPR/FEMA Currently a portion of the proposed project is within the 100-year FEMA designated floodplain. The particular designation is an A-0 2-ft depth zone or flooding up to 2-ft can possibly be expected. The A-0 designation indicates that a detailed study was not performed. The A-0 designation is based on field study and anecdotal information. The purpose of a flood plain designation is to identify risk and establish flood insurance rates. Residential Construction 1' Above the 100 year flood elevation Commercial Construction either wet of Dry Floodproofing Change the FEMA/FIRM map flood designation from an A-0 2-ft depth zone to a studied A zone with an established flood elevation. vllP The applicants Hydraulic and hydrologic analysis has proposed mitigating additional stormwater runoff by implementing detention as to not increase the runoff greater than that of the pre-development rates for the 2-, 10- and 100-year storms. The hydraulic analysis shows the proposed construction will not increase the water surface elevation by more than 2-1/2" required by the WWMP-DDM, adopted last October. How will the flood potential be reduced by replacing the bridge? By replacing the existing bridge and raising it by 3-1/2 feet as the hydraulic study indicates increases the cross sectional area and will allow more water to pass under the bridge. How can the fill.in the floodplain required for building the project features not cause an increase in flooding potential? The Citys Waterways management plan identified a level of significance within the Special Flood Hazard Management Area as an increase of the water surface elevation of more that 2.5". Since the hydraulic study identifies an increase of less than the 2.5" rise in the water surface elevation for the 100 year therefore the amount of fill within the flood plain is no significant decrease in flood plain storage. lv y Mfr LU 6.5: Creeks and Flooding Programs LU 6.5.1: Previously Developed Areas To limit the potential for increased flood damage in previously developed areas, the City will: A) Ensure that infill, remodel, and replacement projects: 1) Do not displace more flood water than previous structures on a site; 2) Do not contribute floating debris to flood waters; 3) Have finish floors at least one foot above the flood level or, if this is not practical, be flood-proofed, to minimize risk to life and damage to utilities, furnishings, merchandise, and equipment. B) Require new infill buildings to have greater setbacks than their older neighbors, when necessary to achieve the purposes of this section. C) Remove man-made obstruction from channels. D) Ensure that any new development in the watershed detains rather than accelerates runoff from development sites. LU 6.4.3: Flood Hazard Reduction A) The City will develop and carry out environmentally sensitive programs to reduce or eliminate the potential for flooding previously developed, flood-prone areas of the City. B) The City should allow flood waters to move through natural channels. Flow should be accommodated by removing debris and man-made obstructions. The City recognizes that natural channels generally cannot contain runoff from a storm of intensity expected once in 100 years ("100-year storm"). D) Within predominantly developed areas (such as downtown) infill, remodel, and replacement projects should not displace more flood water than previous structures on the site or in the vicinity. Commercial buildings may be flood-proofed where providing floor levels above the 100-year storm flow is not appropriate due to adjacent improvements. New infill buildings may be required to have greater setbacks than their older neighbors. Land Use Element LU 6.4.1: Creek and Wetlands Management Objectives The City should manage its lake, creeks, wetlands, floodplains, and associated wetlands to achieve the multiple objectives of. A) Maintaining and restoring natural conditions and fish and wildlife habitat; B) Preventing loss of life and minimizing property damage from flooding; C) Providing recreational opportunities which are compatible with fish and wildlife habitat, flood protection, and use of adjacent private properties. D) Reco zing and distinguishing between those sections of creeks and Laguna Lake which are in previously urbanized areas, such as the downtown core, and sections which are in largely natural areas. Those.sections already heavily impacted by urban development and activity may be appropriate for multiple use whereas creeks and lakeshore in a.more natural state shall be managed for maximized ecological value. Housing Element 11.2.2 Prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved as dedicated open space or parks, on sites subject to natural hazards such as unmitigatable geological or flood risks, or wild fire dangers, and on sites subject to unacceptable levels of man-made hazards or nuisances, including severe soil contamination, airport noise or hazards, traffic noise or hazards, odors or incompatible neighboring uses. Open Space Element OS 7.2.1: Hazard Mitigation A) Development shall avoid or adequately mitigate hazards. B) Development shall not increase hazards on other properties in the area. Q Development shall pay its equitable share for mitigating hazards that effect neighborhoods or the community at large. D) Access to development shall not pass through hazard areas unless the hazard is mitigated. E) Hazard mitigation measures shall not reduce the quality of open space resources such as creeks, wetlands, or hills. F) Hazard mitigation measures shall not burden the taxpayers with high maintenance costs. (p52) _ Page 1 of 1 I Allen Settle - Dec. 7 Agenda #Ph6 RED FILE From: <dancarp54@earthlink.net> MEETING AGENDA To: <asettle@slocity.org> Date: 12/2/2004 11:33 AM DATE ITEM #f' Subject: Dec. 7 Agenda #Ph6 Hi Alan, My house will be coming before you Tueday night for Master List Designation to the Historical Properties List. I have enclosed a link to a virtual tour of the house so that you could view it before Tuesday night. Thank you for your support. Dan Carpenter httD.//www.digitalmediatour.com/­dmt videos/century2lsloDrop/2030johnson/dmt.htm 2030 Johnson Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ph. 805-543-5211 Fax 805-543-5212 [R:EC:EIVED a COON IL CDD DIR C 3 2�M CAO FIN DIR TY CLERK ATTOCAO FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY PW DIR CLERK'ORIG POLICE CHF D T E4DS 11 REC DIR ✓• i UTIL DIR 1 HR DIR file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}0000I.HTM 12/3/2004 Page 1 of 1 SLO Citycouncil-Support Bridge Street Development Project VED From: Damon Noller<damon @ bobgear.com> DEC 0 7 pip To: slocitycouncil@slocity.org <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> Date: 12/7/2004 3:10 PM L LO CITY CLERK Subject: Support Bridge Street Development Project Greetings San Luis Obispo City Council Members, This email is in support of the Bridge Street Development! I was pleased to hear that you will again be reviewing the proposed Bridge Street Development. I was disappointed by the denial of the project earlier this year as I believe that it is exemplary of the types of tough but creative development project decisions you will need to seriously consider in the coming years, even if in the face of selfish neighborhoods. It is my understanding that the two legitimate concerns, flooding and manufacturing noise, have been significantly abated through a new design and development plan. Please take this re-newed opportunity to approve this smart plan for San Luis Obispo housing development. Thank you, Damon Noller 878 Upham St. CAO :. l- E _R RIR ::IN DIR ACRO FIRE CHIEF J cY San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ai iORNCLERK) IG ;PW DIR 'POLICE CHF ❑ D-P- CADS PdREE C DIR (805) 783-1248 1 IL DIR 1 1 �HR DIR y RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATER ITEM #-116 file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 12/7/2004 Page 1 of 1 C SLO Citycouncil - Bridge Street Project From: Judy Nielsen <slojude@charter.net> DEC 0 7 204 To: <SLOCityCoundl@slodty.org> Date: 12/7/2004 9:50 AM SLO CITY CLERK Subject: Bridge Street Project It does not appear to us that the significant issues have changed since this project was considered in the summer in spite of the reduction of"affordable housing" and the creation of commercial condominiums which seems to be an oxymoron; condominium connotes a living space which was deemed not allowable. `rY' COUNCIIR Concerns that remain are: — CC FIN DIR �r!RE CHIEF TTORNEV Z PW DIR Flooding After a few hours of hard rain on Tuesday October 18, the q ,2 ERKC, IG �POLICECHF creek was at its banks. When Silas Lyon condemned the Mayor for his 0 D T-F,ADs Z -C DIR previous stand he stated ,'This man is an engineer who has dealt UTiL DIR with flooding issues his entire professional life" It seems to us x ,- HR DIR therefore that Dave Romero is the most credible voice.The local grapevine indicates the mayor no longer has this concern. Safety How will emergency vehicles access and egress property over the narrow, green bridge and road? Open Space It was stated by Crizer in September that there would be no net loss of Open Space because the brambles would be saved; that is RED FILE totally unrelated to the hillside Open Space issue. This is the second General Plan amendment MEETING AGENDA that John Seamon has requested to encroach on more Open Space DATE 1�h ATEM #�� Commercial How can additional commercial space be justified when South --tet_ Broad and South Higuera are lined with new unoccupied commercial buildings with no sign of potential tenants? Future If the council approves this project but upon actual geological and site preparation, city codes and regulations cannot be met, what happens? We are disappointed that city staff it seems has been manipulated by the land seller and developer; it is our understanding that their position is not subjective but rather legislative to assure that in the end codes,rules and regulations are enforced. There also exists the integrity of some of the players. Thank You, Jim and Judy Nielsen file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 12/7/2004 12-07-2004 10:59AM FROM DMIE WILLIAMS 805 7880471 P. 2 Flood Issues The flood study does not include decrease in floodplain(elevation 167')storage volume due to lots 2-12 and roadway construction. The project does not allow for a cut to compensate for the floodplain fill,and therefore lacks a zero-net fill grading plan. The soils report requires structural mat slabs for all foundations. Section B-B of the Preliminary Drainage map calls for finished floor to be 3 feet above existing grade. This will result in significant fill in the floodplain. If the finished floor elevations shown in Section B-B is 169.5' and the existing grade is 164'. How does the road connect to the garage without filling in the floodplain? If the houses are built on stilts much heat will be lost through the floor which make 30%greater energy efficiency unlikely. The main access road elevation is 164' and will be under 3' of water in a 100 year storm. Attachement 10, page 4, item 16 needs to be expanded to include all buildings in the floodplain. I V I CV-1 'C..D 7o T-UL.LOC,..) C' ..• �... 4 � ;a r.{ ;:.3n..,j, ...r.'ct•�. 4:s1c;! i..i4:dr"",,, �•�. : >` iT +S 'T#�1 A'i "� ►C.t !.JU u C _ tw tr.1` 2?, 1 L,DOC 1"��F c�'' t;�;r � �nt�.:: -TJ4 P. ;._'s.i 1 H IY;ojA ,l OAJ ! s A.b':`J �A�"ice -; fJ� t�� Ji•,.�f ea iL RED FILE _ MEETING AGENDA DATE-%fip� ITEM #T*r) ���. �:!•`��`:,..,.. .'.�t. :. ',;r;r:..yi �.,�:..,r '.�� `? S r''. .,:+.:Tr�„J .,..,;,v ,!�^'- � � .,°' 1,�r COUNCI_ �'CDD.DIR $CAO S=IN D I R RECEIVED ACAO SIRE CHIEF ErATTORNEY ZIPW DI DEC C 7 2CO4 CLERK'ORIG 2�POLICE CHF ❑ D PT HEADS REC DIR LO CITY CLERK ja�[RI D!9 Rick Hamlin RECEIVED 201 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA DEC 0 7 KIM 541-1203 SLOW CITY CLERK December 6, 2004 Dear Council Members: I have witnessed about ten floods at the site of the proposed Bridge Street project: 1969, 1973, 1977, 1985, 1995, 1997, 1998, and other years (occasionally, more than one in a season). Upstream development accelerates and concentrates drainage into the channel causing the flash flood type response. Historically, the flooding on this land was not well publicized because it has been essentially undeveloped, however it experiences a high frequency of serious, flash flood like flooding, worse than any area in the city that I know of including lower Higuera Street, San Luis Creek, etc. I have reviewed the video recording of the December 2003 City Council hearing on this project and the Council made it crystal clear that placing residential housing in the 100-year flood zone brought many health, safety and property damage risks that were not acceptable. Despite the strong and clear message from the Council, the latest proposal still calls for eight residences in the 100-year flood zone. I find it particularly disturbing that the Council Agenda Report for the hearing fails to discuss or even disclose this fact or the risks related thereto; the discussion of flood risks is practically non existent. Therefore it is left to the City Council (again) to recognize and act on the flood related issues as well as the land use compatibility issues of this residential/commercial subdivision proposed in an exclusively Manufacturing neighborhood. Parts of our General Plan are directly applicable but not fully addressed in the Council Agenda Report: 2004 Housing Element, Site Suitability, Policy 11.2.2. "Prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved as dedicated open space or parks, on sites subject to natural hazards such as unmitigatable geological or flood risks, or wild fire dangers, and on site subject to unacceptable levels of man-made hazards or nuisances, including severe soil contamination, airport noise or hazards, traffic noise or hazards, odors or incompatible neighboring uses" (page 41). 2004 Housing Element, Appendix D, Residential Land Resources(discusses vacant lands available but considered unsuitable for residential use because they are in a 100-year flood zone) "These parcels are located within a 100-year flood zone andarenot suitable for residential development until the flood hazard is mitigated...'` (page 139). "Areas within 100-year flood zone and not presently suitable for development'' (page 142). A few miscellaneous thoughts: Undesirable to "force fit" 16 residences into this exclusively manufacturing neighborhood. The owner can file an application for a "Letter of Map Revision" with FEMA to adjust the 100-year flood line if he considers it feasible, otherwise it cannot legally be adjusted. It appears that all residences could possibly be moved out of the flood zone portion of the parcel. Access roads (except the new bridge deck) will be submerged during floods, vehicular access to the residences during floods might be impossible. �"JW ,�CCUNCIL e,2 CDD DIR Sincerely, CAO FIN DIR RED FILE ,FerACAO lFIRE CHIEF MEIJING AGENDA ;?ATTORNEY C-11 PW DIR CLERK'ORiG —E� POLICE CHF Rick Hamlin, PE DATEI ITEM # azn_ LJ DE T HEADS ,hREC DIR UTIL DIR 12T, r 1f-- _.[D/HR DIR jIIIc II � ,•� III 11 ;,/" _.-� ,`s. / 111 I l � 1•I\��\ �i., '"' '• •' �.'�/� _-�"', \\\\\\+1\\\`,\\`x`11\l YT I" I - ---_. °rays: '" '••. -..'�-�_. _-�-_'.". _ _ 111 7c I T 0 \ [S plum- O mn CD dOn.:'. �, —• CD O _ U CL I O N C O N :3 O I Q CD "s• % _.._ r T- �_ --13RIDGE TRFET T oo��cco _===T=F E T Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle - Bridge Street Project From: <Hjdende@aol.com> To: <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholl@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <kschwrtz@slocity.org> Date: 12/6/2004 10:24 PM Subject: Bridge Street Project We regret that we will be unable to attend tomorrow's Council meeting to express our continuing concerns about the Bridge Street project. After reading the article in today's Tribune, we feel that flooding at that site has not been EREECEiVEDadequately addressed, and the issue of the development's location near a noisy manufacturing business is still worrisome. Since we live in the adjacent 2Qo�?neighborhood, lack of parking is also a problem. Because now there would be fewaffordable units, it is even less desirable than the original proposal. LERK Please consider our opposition when making your decision concerning this proposal. Harriet and John Clendenen 472 Corrida Drive San Luis Obispo 41COUNCIL 7�CDD DIR � CAO 7FIN DIR ,'ACAO /FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY 7'PW DIR WCLERK/ORIG Z POLICE CHF RED FILE ❑ DEPT HEADS, i VREC DIR MEETING AGENDA �GUTIL DIR I / t ;?'HR DIR DAT ITEM # file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW IOOOO1.HTM 12/7/2004 Page 1 of 1 l SLO Citycouncil - Bridge Street project From: "Willi and Bob"<willibob@impulse.net> DEC 0 7 2CM To: <slocitycouncil @ slocity.org> Date: 12/6/2004 5:50 PM SLO CITY CLERK Subject: Bridge Street project Dear Mr. Settle, The revised Bridge Street application still poses the following parking concerns: 1. Parking spaces for live/work units accommodate commercial vehicles. Will the residents of these units share these spaces or will they have designated parking? 2. Are granny units provided parking in addition to the main unit of the dwelling or are the square feet of the ground unit used to determine parking? 3. Some 3 bedroom units have one garage and tandem parking outside. Is the outside parking located in the driveway, thus obstructing exit of the vehicle in the garage? 4. Do the two residences on Bridge Street have no driveways only an easement across the lots which all vehicles must use? If so, will this traffic make these 2 units undesirable? 5. Many Californians use the garage for storage. If this holds true for the Bridge Street project, where will their cars be parked? 6. If residents elect to park on the access road,will they be cited by the Police Department? 7. The pedestrian pathway suggested by staff also provides quick access for residents of the Bridge Street project who must park on Exposition, adjacent to the Open Space. This area is presently used for visitors to the Open Space. Will the city designate parking spaces for these visitors? I believe this is the wrong location for the Bridge Street project. Location, Location, Location. Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system(http://www.grisoft.com). I —� C'OiV�i_,,CI pD R Version:6.0.805/Virus Database:547-Release Date: 12/3/2004 /— C D)I CiN AO _ZFDIR �GACAO2'_FIRE CHIEF J Ai ATTORNEY F,1J DIR CLERK,ORIG ,E!POLICE CHF ❑ 4DE PT FADS ,2 REC DIR r �1 UTIL DIR RED FILE I R DIR MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM # � file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 12/7/2004 Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle-215 Bridge Street-City Council Agenda 12-7-04 From: "D.&E.Dollar"<ddollar@ pacbell.net> To: John Ewan<jewan@slocity.org>,Christine Mulholland<cmulholland@slocity.org>,Allen Settle<asettle@slocity.org>, Dave Romero<dromero@slocity.org>,Paul Brown<pbrown@slocity.org> Date: 12/6/2004 9:16 AM Subject: 215 Bridge Street-City Council Agenda 12-7-04 City Council, Re:215 Bridge Street Please accept my comments as part of the public comment period for the above mentioned agenda item. There are some good ideas with the Bridge Street proposal,but the location is such a problem,that it does not overcome that issue. Original objectives not met. This proposal was touted as green housing for low income.The proposal does not meet those objectives due to poor site selection. I would like to see something like this in the Margarita area. Zoning-by changing the M and OSC zoning-you are setting a poor precedent for other similar actions.I am concern that the message you are sending to the current and future occupants of M zone is the we don't want you.I would hazard a guess that those employees are better paid than the majority of our recent mega store project employees.As for OSC zoning,we will lose total acreage that is under OSC zoning by approving this project.We need some strength in our open space zoning policies so that we don't have this continual lose of zoned open space.Also,the proposal does not allow public access to "their"open space. Flooding-by building in floodplains,we are continuing the flood insurance/government infrastructure to shoulder the burden of poor site selection. Please reject this proposal.Proper site selection is essential. Sincerely, RECEIVED Don Dollar DEC 0 7 NO SLO SLO CITY CLERK . 781-0118 OuNCIL T CDD DIR ICAO FIN DIR ;CACAO .LFIRE CHIEF AiiORNEY 72P11V01R �CLERKORIG POLICE CHF ❑ D-PT HEAD /REC DIR Z.UTIL DIR HR DIR RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM # file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 12/7/2004 Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle - Bridge Street From: <Cindrich1@ao1.com> To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <cmulholl@slodty.org>; <asettle@slodty.org>, <pbrown@slocity.org> Date: 12/6/2004 10:06 AM Subject Bridge Street CC: <kcindrich@sbcglobal.net>, <hfinger@calpoly.edu>, <ddollar@pacbell.net>, <ryck@pacbell.net>, <bndwms@fix.net> Dear City Council Members: I trust you have already received my email from last week regarding the Bridge Street Project. In reviewing my letter, I have realized that I failed to include one additional concern/request. The plan currently includes a trail to the Open Space from the proposed development. It is my understanding that this comes at the recommendation of staff and not the applicant. It is my opinion and others in the neighborhood that this will provide access to Exposition and Corrida streets, encouraging off site parking in that area. I would like to request that if the project is approved that this trail be eliminated. Thank you again for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, RECEIVED Gina Cindrich DEC 0 7 Mli SLO CITY CLERK RED FILE COUNCIL TCDD E' MEETING AGENDA AAAA FIN ,a"ACAO ,2 FIRE DI-C CHIEF DATE ITEM # jr,�IAiTORNEY OPW DIR LEAK/O913 .EF POLICE CHF ElEl T EAD f REC DIR ' UTIL DIR 2rHR DIR file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW)000O1.HTM 12/7/2004 Page 1 of 1 C Allen Settle- Bridge Street RED FILE From: <Cindrichl @aol.com> MEETING AGENDA To: <asettle@slocity.org> DATUAVOL EM # Date: 12/2/2004 12:04 PM Subject: Bridge Street CC: <hfinger@calpoly.edu>, <kcindrich@sbcglobal.net> Dear Mr. Settle: I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. I also hope you received my previous email regarding meeting to discuss ongoing concerns about the Bridge Street project. Since I did not hear back from you, I went ahead and set up a time for Helene Finger and I to meet with Christine Mulholland tomorrow morning, at my home at 2283 Exposition Ct. at 9:30. If you are available to meet with us,we would love the opportunity to talk with you about this project. Hope to see you then! Thank you! Gina Cindrich 541-6339 RECEIVED 000r:CI - CDD DIR DEC 0 3 2C0 CAO FIN DIR ACAO D FIRE CHIEF SLO CITY CLERK D ATTORNEY 1 PW DIR CLERK/ORIG 7 POLICE CHF DE t ' 'EADS 1 REC DIR / 1 UTIL DIR ❑ HR DIR file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 12/3/2004 Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle-Bridge Street Project From: "Sara Egerer"<sdegerer@hounail.com> MEETING AGENDA To: <asettle@slocity.org> DATI;(�QZ/ITEM it 1-,27 Date: 12/2/2004 7:17 PM Subject: Bridge Street Project Dear Allen Settle I am emailing you to voice my support for the Birdge street project..As a working member of the SLO community affordable housing is very important to me. I love living here but am increasingly faced with the dilemma of renting housing to be able to live and work here,verses moving out of the area in order to be able to buy. Also I think that the environmental benefit of the designs in this project are important to support and promote.The Bridge Street project is sustainable housing and and its commercial units exceeds state and federal energy standards.Thank you for your time. Sincerely Sara Egerer RECEIVED �NlCDD DIR DEC C 3 2CO'f CAO E FIN DIR ACAO FIRE CHIEF SLO CITY CLERK ATTORNEY E RW DIR CLERKIORIG F—' POLICE CHF DED/ REC DIR Yl UTIL DIR HR DIR file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 12/3/2004 San Luis Obispo City Council Members 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA RED FILE MEETING AGENDA December 2, 2004 DA 0 V ITEM # P1 Dear City Council Members, Romero, Mulholland,Settle,Ewan and Brown: As you are aware, the Bridge Street project will soon be coming before you once again. While the applicant suggests that the issues previously identified by the City Council have been resolved with the revised plan, I would like to point out some of my remaining concerns with regard to issues of flooding. #1. The applicant's flooding report does not take into consideration all of the structures proposed in the project. The structures included in the report are limited to units 1-8. The residential units are not mentioned in the report. *Please require that the flood report be revised to include the impact that the other units will have upon flooding and how these residential units will be impacted by being in the flood plain. #2. The revised plan includes a new raised bridge that will be above the flood waters. The bridge will result in safe access to a road that is located in an AO flood zone with two (2) foot flooding. In the City of San Luis Obispo Flood Preparation Information brochure it is stated, "More people drown in their cars than anywhere else. Only two (2) feet of water can sweep away an automobile. The moral? Do not drive through a flooded area." * Please ask the applicant for clarification as to how this hazard will be mitigated as to not place residents in a situation where they will be driving in flood waters. #3. In the applicant's soils report the recommendation is for all structures to be built on mat slab pads, however, the applicants drawing show structures being built on raised piers. *. Please ask the applicant to address why the recommendations in the report have not resulted in design modifications, as well as how the additional fill needed to build on pads will effect flooding. This project has stirred much debate in our community, but few would argue the need for affordable, workforce housing in SLO. It is regrettable that this project cannot provide what it had originally promised...affordable, sustainable housing in SLO. While this project set out to address this need, the logistics of building the proposed project on the selected site make that goal impossible. If the applicant is held to the recommendations in their own soils and geologic reports,as well as the City's requirements, the costs incurred while building on this site will be substantial. These costs will have to be passed on the home buyers. The end result will be a cluster of homes that will not be affordable to the workforce population the project was originally intended to target. If approved, the City will not have provided affordable housing, but rather a few more high priced homes, that are built on a flood plain. Moreover, this pristine parcel of land that is currently zoned open space will be forever lost to the residents of SLO. Please give thoughtful consideration to what the final outcome of the project will truly be for the residents of this community. Thank you for your consideration on this matter! Sincerely, Ln DD DIA RECENED IN DIR gipm ek&dcag IRE CHIEF DEC 0 2004 PW DIR LICE CHF SLO CITY COUNCIL c DIR IL DIR DIR Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED Allen Settle-Bridge Street Project-PH7 From: Helene Finger<hfinger@calpoly.edu> SLO CITY CLERK To: <asettle@slocity.org> Date: 12/4/2004 7:22 AM Subject: Bridge Street Project-PH7 Allen, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss some of the continuing concerns on the Bridge Street project. According to the General Plan(LU 6.2.0)one of the 3 fundamental reasons for designating this property as Open Space is to "To protect the health,safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards such as landslides,wildland fires,flooding and erosion." Be aware of what changing that designation will do to the city's liability. The General Plan(LU 6.2.2)only allows the following 3 reasons to build in this area: to protect public safety,for telecommunications facilities or to re-build an existing house. This project meets none of those criteria therefore the development limit line should not be changed. The General Plan(LU 6.2.5)further states that development in hillside areas should, "Be on land sloping less than 15%". As shown in the applicants'cross slope analysis drawing, lots 4,7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are all located on slopes in excess of that requirement including grades in excess of 50%. Furthermore,because these slopes are so steep,the applicants'Geotechnical Investigation report requirements will result in construction cuts to the top of the hill(well in excess of the 185'Development Limit Line). These steeply sloping sites should remain in their Open Space designation. When the applicant bought the property less than 10 years ago,the Development Limit Line was below the 161 foot elevation(the Development Limit Line was at the property line). This is a logical continuation of the Open Space boundary from all adjacent properties(see attached Exhibit A). All of the adjacent properties above the 175 foot elevation are Open Space. Moving the Development Limit Line a second time for this owner will result in an island of development surrounded by Open Space-and will not serve the general good of the City. Lastly if you decide that the Development Limit Line must be moved,then the location of the Development Limit Line needs to be clearly stated in the resolutions before the board. Attachment 10,the resolution for land use map amendment states in the title that it is "adjusting the Development Limit Line to the 185 foot contour"and shows this on the map,but neglects to state this in the document. Please add this statement to page 2 of this resolution(Section 2 Aesthetics#5). This item would then read, "The development limit line will be adjusted to the 185 foot contour. All areas outside the development line shall be deed restricted with a private open space easement". Please also add this statement to Attachment 12,the resolution adopting the vesting tract map. "The development limit line will be adjusted to the 185 foot contour" should be added to the beginning of item 11 on page 4 of this resolution. Thank you for your time in thoughtfully considering these issues. Sincerely, Helene Finger,Professional Engineer C50855 I R �GCOUNCI'_CAO IEFCACAO —v J] AT CRN_ CHFCLERKIORIG HEADSRRED FILE (] DEPT= IR`� 1 _ - MEETING AGENDA x DATE_9ITEM # file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 12/6/2004 Allen Settle- Exhibit A.pdf - Page 1 EXHIBIT A 1 1801 I TV1J1)J 4n J ' V t1J I .S k ?- R-4 BRIDGE-- M - p - � ' I F R-2- R-2-PD -2'R-2-PD FS-40 •�— 6160 _ VOS-5 City ovmod Open Space Note:this map is intended for reference only and is not to scale. The boundary of the medium density residential district is intended to follow the 185 foot contour and an accurate map will he created upon adoption of an ordinance to re-zone the property. � -rte Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED Allen Settle-Bridge Street Project DEC 0 6 2N4 SLO CITY CLERK From: "Asheley Epperson"<asheleyepperson@hotmail.com> To: <council@slocity.org>,<dromero@slocity.org>,<pbrown@slocity.org>,<jewan@slocity.org>,<asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholl @slocity.org> Date: 12/4/2004 7:53 PM Subject: Bridge Street Project Dear City Coucil Members, My name is Asheley Epperson and I am in favor of the Bridge Street Project. I graduated from college just two years ago,am currently working for Cal Poly,and plan becoming a Registered Nurse. The idea of affordable houses in town thrills me. My roots are here,but at this point,I don't see any way of me affording a house in town on a nurse's salary. I have worked for a local non-profit that deals with Public Health issues(ALPHA Crisis Pregnancy Center)and I want to eventually work in Public Health. This project gives me hope that one day I will be able to live in the town.in which I will be providing much needed services. Thanks for your time. I trust your decision in this process. Best Regards,Asheley COU�T Z CDD DIR CAO _E7-FIN DIR of CAO -FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY Z'PW DIR CLERK'OR113 2.-pouCE CHF El T DIR 2 UTICL DIR P(HR DIR RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DA- ITEM # file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 12/6/2004 RED FILE - MEETING AGENDA George and Gayle Rosenberger DAT t 1 ITEM #JJj9 2444 Sendero Court San Luis Obispo Ca 93401 December 6, 2004 Mayor Dave Romero City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 COUNCIL ITEM NO. 7 -215 BRIDGE STREET - DECEMBER 7, 2004 AGENDA As neighbors to the proposed project at 215 Bridge Street, we ask that your Council not support the project as proposed and, therefore, not approve the requested amendment to the General Plan; not approve the adjusted development limit line and not rezone the property as proposed. While the proposed project has always had many positive and innovative aspects, other project details remain problematic. Fortunately, your Council had the foresight on December 3, 2003 and denied an earlier version of this project. The project as currently proposed and revised is improved over the earlier submission, but still contains areas of concern. Parkin - Parking requirements remain a major concern for the adjacent neighborhood. While the proposed project may comply with the letter of zoning regulation parking requirements, they certainly ignore the practical aspects of the parking requirements. The proposed project access driveway affords limited parking opportunities, unlike a "normal" street which provides parking for visitors, guests, deliveries and normal neighborhood functions. Even the Planning Commission staff report on page 9 points out that "the distribution of parking does not appropriately correspond to the size of the units. Although the intention of the parking plan is to allow shared parking, the design would benefit from appropriately allocating more parking to larger units and fewer parking spaces to smaller units." Please require the applicant to provide adequate parking with the proper parking allocation as to unit requirements and consider the lack of normal on-street parking. Pedestrian Pathwav - Staff is proposing a linkage via a pedestrian pathway from the interior of the proposed project through to the existing City Open space trail that begins on Exposition Drive. Given the lack of sufficient and adequate project parking, this pathway will only be an open invitation for guests of residents of the proposed project to park in the Exposition/Woodbridge neighborhood. Please eliminate the pathway requirement from the proposed project. � owlJ RECEIVED YlcOUNCI alfDD DI.? 'CAO C"FIN DIR DEC 0 6 2004 �ACA0 AFIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY �PW DIR SLO CIN CLERK 1-CLERKORIG �{'POLICE CHF PT HEADS '�1 REC DIR / ih Mayor Dave Romero December 6, 2004 Page two We are aware that this project has become politically charged and the word "Nimby" has also been thrown about. We look to your Council to provide direction in resolution of the problematic issues in the proposed project. I —�C R. GEORGE ROS NBERGER GAYLE M. ROSENBERGER c - Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner f:\hVgr\215 Bridge St-3