HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/2008, PH 1 - CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING AND A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, FOR THE PACI C
council MR6 aA.
j acEnoa Repom N..iw
CITY O F SAN LU IS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director;
By: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING,
AND A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, FOR THE PACIFIC
COURTYARDS PROJECT (ER, GP/R, & TR 102-07); 1321 & 1327 OSOS
STREET)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt a Resolution reconfiguring the boundary between the Medium-High Density
Residential and Office designations at 1321 & 1327 Osos Street, based on findings, and
approving a Vesting Tentative Tract map, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
2. Introduce an Ordinance reconfiguring the boundary between the Medium-High Density
Residential (R-3-H) and Office (0) zoning designations at 1321 & 1327 Osos Street, based
on findings.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City has received applications fora General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Vesting Tentative
Tract Map (to create both commercial and residential condominiums), environmental review and
architectural review, to allow the development of a new mixed use project. The project site is
about a half acre in size, located mid-block between Osos and Morro and Pacific and Pismo
Streets, and is currently developed with surface parking lots (Attachment 1).
The project has been named "Pacific Courtyards", which is based on its location and courtyard
style site plan with the project building designed around the perimeter of a small automobile court.
The proposed redevelopment of the parking lots involves three levels of building containing 8,840
square feet of office space and 11 residential condominium units over underground parking. A'
total of 53 parking spaces are required for the project. Plans show 44 spaces in the underground
parking garage accessed off of Morro Street and 10 spaces in the ground level parking court
accessed off of Osos Street The project includes one deed-restricted unit for very low-income
households. Detailed site and project descriptions are included in the July 9t' Planning
Commission report(Attachment 4).
C) /
Council Agenda Report—GP/R, TR, ER 102-07 (Pacific Courtyards)
Page 2
The Planning Commission reviewed the project on July 9`h and is recommending that the Council
approve the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map along.with
adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact. The proposed project has
been well received by all the advisory bodies that have reviewed it thus far, including the Planning
Commission, Architectural Review Commission (ARC), and Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC),
who have found the proposed land uses to be a logical use of the site that will be developed with
an architectural style that complements its Old Town Historical District setting.
Data Summary
Addresses: 1321 & 1327 Osos Street
Applicant: Hamish Marshall, Mission Medical Partners, LLC
Representative: Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, Inc.
Current Zoning: R-3-H, Medium-High Density Residential with the Historical Preservation
overlay(0.22 acre) and O, Office(0.32 acre)
General Plan: Medium-High Density and Office
Environmental status: The Community Development Director recommended adoption of a
Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures on June 16, 2008.
Consistency with the General Plan
General Plan conformity is an essential element in the review of this application. The Council
must make a finding that a development approval is consistent with the General Plan. The Council
must also find that the proposed changes to the Zoning and General Plan LUE Maps would
maintain consistency with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
The project is consistent with the Housing Element in that it facilitates the construction of
additional housing. It is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element in that the
proposed rezoning and general plan amendment involve adjusting the boundary line between
existing designations on the site, rather than changing them to another category that does not
currently exist at the site. Because the land use and zoning categories are simply being
redistributed, the proposed changes to the City's maps accommodate the planned redevelopment of
the site with uses and improvements that will be compatible with existing uses on other properties
in the same block that are either zoned Office or R-3, Medium-High Density Residential. A more
detailed discussion of the proposed adjustments between the land use and zoning boundaries,
alternatives considered, and basis for support of the amendments is included in the Planning
Commission agenda report (Attachment 4).
In summary, the key General Plan policies and goals that apply directly to the review of the request
are noted in italics followed by a brief analysis by staff regarding the project's compliance with the
policy or goal:
LUE 2.2.7 Housing & Businesses — "Where housing can be compatible with offices or other
Council Agenda Report—GP/R, TR, ER 102-07 (Pacific Courtyards)
Page 3
businesses, mixed-use projects should be encouraged"
LUE 3.8 Mixed Uses— "Compatible mixed uses in commercial districts should be encouraged. "
Staff's Analysis: Both offices and multi-family residential developments are considered
appropriate as transitional uses between more intensive commercial and lower density residential
areas. The Office zone allows for both uses to coexist. For the most part, the residential units are
oriented toward Osos Street and the offices toward Pacific Street accommodating more privacy
and separation, but allowing for an efficient use of the land with shared facilities like parking.
Compatibility between these uses is enhanced further by the tendency for office uses to be more
actively used during weekdays, while residences are more likely to be used at night and on
weekends.
L UE 2.2.9 Parking— "Large parking lots should be avoided. Parking lots should be screened from
street views. In general,parking should not be provided between buildings and the street. "
Staffs Analysis: The obvious advantage of this design is that the parking will not dominate
views of the project since it will not be visible because it is either underground or shielded in the
courtyard by the project building.
LUE 2.2.10 Compatible Development—"Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be
in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-
living facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density development.
A. Architectural Character
New Buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to neighborhood historical or
architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety. "
Staffs Analysis: The compatibility and architectural character of the development in the context
of the site's historical district setting were at the forefront of both the ABC's and CRC's reviews
of the project. The applicant has selected a Victorian theme for the building architecture
complementing the roof forms of the adjacent Master List Seventh Day Adventist Church building
and coordinating with other historic structures in the near vicinity
HE Goal 2 Affordability — "Accommodate affordable housing production that helps meet the
City's Quantified Objectives."
HE Goal 6 Housing Production — "Plan for new housing to meet the full range of community
housing needs. "
HE 3.7.2 — "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. "
HE 3.12.9 — "Balance City efforts to encourage residential development by focusing as much on
infill development and densification within City limits as on annexation of new residential land. "
Staffs Analysis: The 11 residential units consist of both town home(Units A-F) and flat style
units (Units G-H & J-L). Nine two-bedroom units are proposed, ranging in size from 1,070 to
1�N1 �3
Council Agenda Report—GP/R, TR, ER 102-07 (Pacific Courtyards)
Page 4
1,870 square feet in area, and two one-bedroom units at 800 and 1,070 square feet each. The
proposed units are fairly modest in size which will make them more affordable than larger single
family homes,helping to meet a greater range of housing needs in the community.
The applicant has satisfied its inclusionary housing requirement by designating the 800 square-
foot, one-bedroom unit as a deed-restricted affordable unit for very-low income households. This
allows the project to qualify for a 25% density bonus allowing for more units to be built. Earlier .
plans included one studio apartment as the designated affordable unit. Staff questioned the equity
of having such a significantly smaller unit as the designated affordable unit. The applicant
modified its proposal to change the unit mix to the current nine two-bedroom units and two one-
bedroom units to address the equity concern, with one of the one-bedroom units as the deed-
restricted affordable unit.
Planning Commission's Action
On July 9, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the requested .entitlements that are now
before the City Council. On a 5:0:2 vote (Vice Chairperson Ashbaugh absent; Commr.
Christianson recused herself since she owns property within 5.00 feet of the site), the Planning
Commission recommends to Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 3). The Planning
Commission commended staff and the applicant at working collaboratively to refine the project's
plans to create a project that provides a creative mix of uses and respects the site's historic context.
The Planning Commission's discussion focused on the proposal to utilize tandem parking to meet
the on-site parking requirements for the residential units.. The Commission felt that the use of
tandem parking could be supported here because it is an infill, mixed-use project near the
downtown and oversight would be provided by the Homeowners' Association to insure that it
functions properly. Chairperson Stevenson offered additional findings at the meeting in support of
the tandem parking. The Commission also supported an exception to the total open space
requirements for the project since private and common open space requirements were met and the
exception was warranted based on the project's downtown location and as an allowed incentive
because the project will provide a deed-restricted affordable unit.
Citizen Participation
Testimony was received from Stewart Jenkins, an adjacent property owner, at the conceptual ARC
meeting in support of the project (See Attachment 4). Also attached to the 7-9-08 Planning
Commission report (Attachment 4) are correspondences from Brian Starr as a representative for
the Seventh Day Adventist Church and adjacent property owner Steven Saldo in support of the
project. Nearby property owner Ed Salas spoke at the Planning Commission hearing. He had
some technical questions about the project, but noted that he was in support of it (see Attachment
3).
PH1-4
Council Agenda Report—GP/R, TR,ER 102-07 (Pacific Courtyards)
Page 5
CONCURRENCES
The comments and recommendations of various City departments are reflected in the discussion
and the mitigation measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporated in conditions
and code requirements of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map.
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. While there is a General Plan Amendment
associated with the request, it does not increase the overall area proposed for development or
affect planned land uses. Therefore, the proposed project can be found to be consistent with the
,General Plan, and accordingly have a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVE
Continue the project with direction to the staff and applicant if the Council desires further
information or analysis to render a decision.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity map
2. Planning Commission follow-up letter with adopted Resolution No. 5505-08
3. July 9, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes
4. July 9, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda Report
5. Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
6. Ordinance approving the Rezoning
(Distributed to City Council and in Reading File:, Full-size Project Plans)
T:\Council Agenda Reports\Community Development CARO 02-07(Pacific Courtyards CC report).DOC
N1 5
,It
VICINITY MAp File No. 102=07
1321 & 1327 OSOS
NEW&
�u►►��►h IIIIIIIIIIII ► III►►►► III
Attachment 2
►►�IIII II III
city kil OBISPOo SM
Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo; CA 93401-3218
July 14, 2008
Mission Medical Partners
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ER/TR/GP/R 102-07— 1321 & 1327 Osos Street
Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning
maps to reconfigure the boundary between the Medium-High Density
Residential and Office designations on the site; a Vesting Tentative
Tract Map to divide the site into 6 commercial and 11 residential
condominiums; and environmental review of a new mixed-use
project located on three properties between Osos and Morro Streets
that are currently used as a parking lot
Gentlemen:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of July'9, 2008, recommended that.the City
Council approve the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning, Vesting Tentative Tract
Map, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on findings and subject to conditions
noted in the attached resolution.
The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and,
therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing
before the City Council on August 19, 2008. This date, however, should be verified with
the City Clerk's office at (805) 781-7102.
If you have any questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781=7168.
Sincerely,
Doug Davidson
Deputy Community Development Director
Development Review
Attachment: Resolution No. 5505-08
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. 1 PHI
�A _rr
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. fJ I
ER/TR/GP/R 102-07
Page 2 Attachment-
2-
cc:
SLO County Assessor's Office
C. M. Florence
3427 Miguelito Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Gammon Partners II ETAL
c/o H. Marshall Investments, LLC
..895 Aerovista Place, Suite 100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
i��1 - g
1
Attachment w2
RESOLUTION NO. 5505-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO
THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND ZONING MAPS TO
RECONFIGURE THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE OFFICE (0) AND MEDIUM
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) DESIGNATIONS ON THE SITE, AND A
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2928 TO DIVIDE THE SITE INTO 6
COMMERCIAL AND 11 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1321 & 1327 OSOS STREET; GP/R/T'R/ER 102-07
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
July 9, 2008, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/TR/ER 102-07, Mission
Medical Partners, LLC, applicant; 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 General Plan
Amendment, Rezoning, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing, and the recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee and the
Architectural Review Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Mitigated
Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed project entitlements, and reflects the independent judgment of the Commission. The
Commission acknowledges that the Council through the adoption of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration will incorporate all of the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A into the project
(Mitigation Monitoring Program); and
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
Section 1. General Plan Amendment & Rezoning Findings. Based upon all the evidence,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve application
GP/R 102-07, based on the following findings:
1. The proposed modification is a minor amendment to the Land Use Element and Zoning
Maps because it is a boundary change only which retains the existing Office and
Medium-High Density Residential designations for the site with the same relative
proportions of the overall site area intact.
Resolution No. 5505-08
AttachmentPage 2 2
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, and welfare of those living and working in the vicinity since the proposed changes
to the City's maps accommodate the planned redevelopment of the site with uses and
improvements that will be compatible with other properties in the same block that are
either zoned Office or R-3, Medium-High Density Residential.
3. The Community Development Director recommended adoption of a Negative
Declaration with Mitigation Measures on June 16, 2008. The Planning Commission
finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the
potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Section 2. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Recommendation. Based upon all the
evidence, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve
application TR 102-07 (County Map No. 2928), based on the following findings, including
exception to the total open space requirements for the R-3 zone contained in the City's
Subdivision Regulations, and subject to the following conditions and noting certain code
requirements:
Findings
1. The design of the vesting tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because
the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will incrementally add to the
City's residential housing inventory, result in condominium units that meet density
standards, and will be consistent with the density and development limits established by
the Office (0) and Medium-High Density Residential with the Historical Perseveration
overlay zoning district (R-3-H).
2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the Office
and R-3-H zones since the site is generally flat, surrounded by a mixture of residential
projects, parking lots, and office buildings.
3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use
of property within) the proposed subdivision.
4. The design of the vesting tentative tract map and proposed improvements are not likely to
cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage, or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, because the site does not have any
creeks or other potentially-significant habitat areas for fish and wildlife.
5. Tandem parking within the project is supported by the Planning Commission for the
following reasons:
a. The City of San Luis Obispo encourages creative use of infill development to provide
opportunities for much-needed workforce housing near the downtown to support
adopted Housing Element policies and goals.
b. The site is unusually configured and, with building height limitations, poses difficult
building design constraints that would potentially result in fewer residential units if
conventional side-by-side parking were insisted upon.
PN 1-1Q
-achment 2
Resolution No. 5505-08 t
Page 3
c. The project site is located adjacent to the downtown core that will provide pedestrian
access to many daily needs of the residents. Therefore, residents may be less
dependent on use of their automobiles such that the inconvenience associated with
tandem parking may be minimized.
6. The property to be divided has an irregular shape and a spilt zoning between Medium-
High Density Residential (R-3-H) and Office(0) that makes it impractical or undesirable,
in this particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in
the Subdivision Regulations regarding the provision of total open space for a residential
condominium.
7. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the
sole reason for granting the exception to total open space standards, because approval of
the project as designed results in a mixed-use development that meets standards for both
private and common open space requirements, respects the context of its historic setting
and provides housing opportunities, including a deed-restricted affordable unit, in close
proximity to the downtown core and other public services and amenities
8. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity since the project will meet requirements for
both private and common open space areas.
9. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent
with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning since the
project includes a deed-restricted affordable unit for very-low income households. Per
Section 17.90.050 B.7. of the City's Zoning Regulations (Incentives for Affordable
Housing Projects), projects that contain affordable housing may request relaxation of
subdivision standards as an incentive.
10. Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations
and is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or other
plans of the City, because the design of the project is consistent with the intent of the R-3
zone to "provide housing for smaller households desiring little open space" in that all
units have qualifying private open spaces.
11. No feasible alternative to authorizing the exception would satisfy the intent of City
policies and regulations.
12. The Community Development Director recommended adoption of a Negative
Declaration with Mitigation Measures on June 16, 2008. The Planning Commission
finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the
potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Conditions:
1. The subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be
approved by the Community Development Director and the City Attorney prior to final
map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions:
pal-11
Resolution No. 5505-08
Attachment ~2
Page 4
a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for
professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways,
drainage, on-site sewer facilities, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and
landscaping.
b. Grant to the City the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association
fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and
the right of the City to inspect the site at mutually-agreed times to assure conditions of
CC&R's and final map are being met.
c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces.
d. Grant to the City the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked
in unauthorized places.
e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage
of inoperable vehicles.
f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas.
g. No change in City-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Attorney
approval.
h. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all
officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of
the association.
i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways
as required by the City Fire Department.
j. CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards
which are substantially screened from view.
k. Prospective property owners and renters shall be notified of the project's provision of
tandem parking. Additionally, they shall be advised that they should ensure that the
amount of on-site parking is adequate for their needs because they will not be able to
obtain on-street parking permits for any additional parking needs.
1. The responsibility for the placement of the trash and recycling containers at the street
on collection days will be the responsibility of the property owners' association. The
property owners' association shall coordinate with San Luis Garbage Company
regarding the collection time and preferred location for the placement of trash and
recycling containers to minimize the obstruction of the public right-of-way.
2. As part of the encroachment permit for the proposed frontage improvements, the
applicant shall submit plans to address any changes made to on-street parking, signage,
and striping to the approval of the City Engineer.
{�N 1 -12-
Resolution No. 5505-08 Attachment
'
Page 5 — -- -
3. The applicant shall pay in-lieu fees for the 19 off-site parking spaces that will be
eliminated with development.
4. Short-term bicycle parking shall be provided in a minimum of two locations; one for
bicyclists entering from Osos Street and one for bicyclists entering from Morro Street.
5. The details of the required lockable private storage areas (minimum of 200 cubic feet per
unit) shall be to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission..
6. The down sloping Morro Street driveway slope shall comply with City Standard 2130.
7. To ensure pedestrian safety, the driveway exits shall provide a minimum of ten (10) feet
clear visibility to the sidewalk on both sides of the exit, unobstructed by building comers,
columns, or other visual impediments. The distance is measured behind the stop bar and
two feet to the right of the centerline where a driver would be located in a stopped
vehicle.
8. The Drainage Report shall address post-development water quality per City Standard
IOIOB. Details of the passive design concept proposed shall be discussed in an amended
report and shown on plans submitted for final review by the Architectural Review
Commission.
9. New curb, gutter, and sidewalk will be required along the project frontage on Osos Street
and Morro Street.
10. All wire utilities to the new units shall be underground. No additional utility poles shall
be set and no wires shall be extended across the proposed project to serve adjacent
properties.
11. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10'-wide public utility and street tree easement across the
site frontage on Morro and Osos Streets. Said easements shall be adjacent to and
contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering the site.
12. The subdivider shall provide individual electrical, phone, television, natural gas, and
water service and related utility company meters to each unit to the approval of the
affected utility company and the Public Works Director. Sub-metering of the water
services may be allowed upon request and with the approval of the Utilities Director.
13. 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.
Code Requirements
The following code requirements are included for informational purposes only. They serve
to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project.
aN1-13
Resolution No. 5505-08
--� Attachment 2
Page 6
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during
the plan'check process.
1. Long and short-term bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with City standards.
Bike lockers or interior space within each dwelling unit or accessory structure shall be
provided for the storage of at least two bicycles per dwelling unit. In addition, one short-
term bicycle parking space shall be provided for guests of the residential units and a
minimum of three long-term parking spaces and two short-term parking spaces shall be
provided for the office uses. All bicycle parking shall be located outside of the public
right of way.
2. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
access, drainage, common driveways,and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the
final map or recorded separately prior to map recordation if applicable.
3. A preliminary soils report is required in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and
the City of San Luis Obispo Subdivision Regulations at the time of final map submittal.
The report shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the City's Subdivision
Regulations and the Subdivision Map Act.
On motion by Commissioner Multari, seconded by Commissioner Gould, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Multari, Gould, Brodie, Carpenter, and Stevenson
NOES:
REFRAIN: Commissioner Christianson
ABSENT: Commissioner Ashbaugh
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 9th day of July, 2008.
Doug Davi on, Secretary
Planning Commission
Attachment .SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 9, 2008
ROLL CALL:
Presents Commissioners Amanda Brodie, Dan Carpenter, Carlyn Christianson,
Diana Gould-Wells, Michael Multari, and Chairperson Charles
Stevenson
Absent: Vice-Chairperson John Ashbaugh
Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Senior
Planner Jeff Hook, and Deputy Director Kim Murry
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as submitted.
MINUTES: The minutes of June 25, 2008, were continued. Commissioner Carpenter
provided his amendments in writing.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1321 & 1327 Osos Street. ER/TR/GP/R 102-07: Request to amend the General
Plan Land Use Element and Zoning maps to reconfigure the boundary between the
Medium-High Density Residential and Office designations on the site; a Vesting
Tentative Tract Map to divide the site into 6 commercial and 11 residential
condominiums; and environmental review of a new mixed-use project located on
three properties between Osos and Morro Streets that are currently used as a
parking lot; Mission Medical Partners, applicant. (Pam Ricci)
Commr. Christianson declared a conflict of interest due to the location of her residence
and recused herself from the discussion.
Pam Ricci provided the staff report and summarized the background of the proposed
zone change. The issues of tandem parking, open space requirements, and affordable
housing were highlighted.
Chairperson Stevenson clarified the storage requirements and suggested, possibly
adding a condition of approval.
Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, representing the applicant summarized the project
and requested approval from the Commission. Jonathan Watts, project architect,
reviewed the architectural design and showed other examples of mixed-use projects
containing tandem parking.
Ed Salas, neighboring resident, was concerned about drainage, fire hydrants, and
views. Senior Planner Ricci responded to his concerns by explaining how they were
PH 1-15
\ y�
Planning Commission Minute
July 9, 2008 Attachment 3
Page 2
addressed by the project design, mitigation measures, or the proposed conditions of
approval.
Commr. Multari supported the project including the tandem parking and exception to
open space standards. He suggested modifying Finding #9 to eliminate the wording
about access to Mitchell Park as justification for granting the exception.
Chairperson Stevenson supported the project and complemented staff with their
creativity and the flexibility employed in reviewing the zoning and development
standards. He stated that tandem parking should be considered carefully and offered
specific findings to address the subject project, as well as possibly future developments
with tandem parking.
Commr. Carpenter supported the creative approach to the zoning and also supported
the tandem parking concept of the project.
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Gould, the Commission voted 5:0
to recommend. that the -Council approve the General Plan/Rezone, Vesting Tentative
Tract Map, and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The motion_included revising Finding
#9, adding a Finding on tandem parking, and adding a condition on storage space.
2. Citywide. GPI 49-06: Review Chapters 1 & 2 of the Draft South Broad Street
Corridor Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Jeff Hook)
Commissioner Brodie declared a conflict of interest due to the location of her place of
residence/business and recused herself from the discussion.
Jeff Hook provided the staff presentation and summarized the changes made to the
draft plan in response to direction from the Planning Commission. He explained the
format and organization of the revised plan and summarized the key components.
Commissioner questions of staff:
Commr. Multari asked if the intent was to show build-to lines and setback areas (as
indicated on Figure 2.8) on graphics for every location where dedications are required.
Staff answered in the affirmative.
Commr. Carpenter requested clarification of connectivity in the plan area and whether
there was a possibility to provide circulation between McMillan and Garibaldi or
Lawrence.
Staff responded with the information that Garibaldi is not a public right-of-way and there
are also grade changes and existing development that make connections in this area
difficult to achieve.
Commr. Carpenter indicated that the Bishop Street overpass is listed in the Circulation
Element and there may be a need to provide this improvement to address traffic
concerns and connectivity associated with build-out of the City. He asked whether this
plan considered locating the bike/pedestrian overpass with the road overpass rather
than having a separate location.
�N1-!�
Attachent 4
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT rrEM n I
BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner FR, MEETING DATE: July 9, 2008
FROM: Doug Davidson,Deputy Director,Development Review DD.
CITY FILE NUMBERS: ER, GP/R, &TR 102-07
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1321 & 1327 Osos Street
SUBJECT: Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning maps to
reconfigure the boundary between the Medium-High Density Residential and Office designations
on the site; a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to divide the site into 6 commercial and 11 residential
condominiums; and environmental review of a new mixed-use project located on three
properties between Osos and Morro Streets that are currently used as a parking lot.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 9), which recommends that the City Council:
A. Approve the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning.
B. Approve a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
C. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The City has received applications for a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Vesting Tentative
Tract Map (to create both commercial and residential condominiums), environmental review and
architectural review, to allow the development of a new mixed use project. The project has been
named "Pacific Courtyards", which is based on its courtyard style site plan with the project
building designed around the perimeter of a small automobile court. The proposed
redevelopment of the parking lots is fairly intensive with three levels of building containing
8,840 square feet of office space and 11 residential condominium units over underground
parking.
The Planning Commission will be reviewing a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map. The Planning Commission's actions on the project will be in the form of a
recommendation to the City Council.
Data Summary
Addresses: 1321 & 1327 Osos Street& 1322 Morro (parking lot)
Applicant: Hamish Marshall, Mission Medical Partners,LLC
Representative: Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, Inc.
PHI -17
p
GP/R,TR, ER 102-07 (Paci.,c Courtyards) 4Attachment 4
Page 2 1
Current Zoning: R-3-H, Medium-High Density Residential with the Historical Preservation
overlay (0.22 acre) and O, Office (0.32 acre)
General Plan: Medium-High Density and Office
Environmental status: The Community Development Director recommended adoption of a
Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures on June 16, 2008.
Site Description
The 23,600 square-foot (0.54 acre) project
site consists of three separate properties:
1321 Osos Street(APN: 002-442-013)
1327 Osos Street (APN: 002-442-020) ; °�
1322 Morro (parking lot, APN: 002-442- '' � � •` `�
014)
i
The properties are generally level, sloping
i Project Site
down slightly from east to west, and
developed with surface parking (47 spaces)
and planters. All of the existing trees on the may'
site would be removed with development Q, "
except for the street trees on Osos Street. .-
Sheet TTM-1 is an existing site survey � " s 1t
which shows contour elevations, the outline F9'
of existing development, and the locations
of trees on the site and adjacent properties. Figure 1 —Vicinity Map
Surrounding development includes the Seventh Day Adventist Church at the corner of Osos and
Pacific Streets (1301 Osos), historically known as the First Baptist Church and built in 1907.
The church is on the City's Master List of Historic Resources and its architectural style
categorized as English Craftsman/Carpenter Gothic. It has a ranking of 3, which means that it is
^.- eligible for placement on the
National Register of Historic
Places. This site is not in a historic
district, but is the most historically
owe r significant structure within the
project block. The residential
portions of the project site are
, - located in the Old Town Historic
j District.
fit■ r.•
Other nearby development includes
a mixture of residential projects,
Figure 2. Seventh Day Adventist Church parking lots, and office buildings.
The Mission Medical complex and
the Marsh Street parking structure are located to the north. All of the residential properties in the
same block to the south of the site are considered to be contributing historic properties.
Tod -19
GP/R,TR,ER 102-07 (Pact,ic Courtyards) -
Page 3
A#tSC�1t11ePlt 4
Proiect Description
The applicant is proposing to build a mixed-use development project that includes a total of
8,840 square feet of office space and 11 residential condominium units. A driveway off of
Morro Street would provide access to a majority of the project parking spaces located in an
underground garage (a total of 44 spaces, 24 of which are proposed in tandem). Another
driveway from Osos Street would provide access to a small 10-space surface parking lot.
The structure will be three levels over the underground parking and has an open courtyard over
the ground level surface parking spaces. The western portion of the building will house the
office component. There will be a ground floor lobby with stair and elevator access to the upper
floors and garage and suites ranging from 940 to 2,440 square feet in size.
The 11 residential units consist of both town home (Units A-F) and flat style units (Units G-H&
J-L). Nine two-bedroom units are proposed, ranging in size from 1,070 to 1,870 square feet in
area, and two one-bedroom units at 800 and 1,070 square feet each.
The proposed building's architectural style is a modern take on a Victorian theme with steeply
pitched, cross-gabled roof forms with bargeboards and decorative framing features in some of
the gable ends. Building materials include smooth-finish stucco for main building surfaces,
Hardi-plank siding as a bulkhead, painted wood trim (bargeboards, eaves), asphalt roof shingles,
and some brick fascia. A colors and materials board will be available at the meeting.
Figure 3
O O�Od, O COs
2 2
O O
3- 3-
-N- -N-
R- Q�5 R
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
A General Plan amendment and rezoning are proposed so that the underlying Office and R-3
land use and zoning categories are in alignment with the proposed office and residential building
components in the project. (see Figure 3 — existing and proposed land use and zoning)
Currently the property at 1321 Osos is designated and zoned Office while the other two
properties are zoned and designated Medium-High Density Residential, R-3-H. The residential
PH �.-19
GP/R, TR,ER 102-07 (Pa&,:fc Courtyards) Aftachment 4'
Page 4
I
component of the project is located on the eastern portion of the site nearer to Osos Street, while
the office component is oriented to the east and Pacific Street. Therefore, the proposed General
Plan amendment and rezoning will be reconfiguring the boundary between the existing land use
and zoning categories on the site rather than changing them to establish a different zoning or
land use.
EVALUATION
The project was originally submitted to the City on June 15, 2007. City staff has worked with
the applicant over the past year to modify the project design to be more consistent with City
policies and property development standards. Initial discussions focused on the proposed project
components and how they related to the underlying land use and zoning categories of Office and
R-3. After a range of different alternatives were considered, the modification to the boundary
between the zoning and land use designations on the site as illustrated in Figure 3 was
determined to be the most straightforward approach to processing the project given the proposed
mix of uses and desired residential density.
Once an acceptable zoning and land use solution was settled on, the focus turned to modifying
the plans to conform to the 35-foot height limit. Staff did not support four-story buildings up to
47 feet in height at this location given the surrounding scale and context of existing
development. In order to modify plans to conform to the 35-foot height, the applicant lost floor
area in both the office and residential components of the projects. The project has now been
before the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for review of the appropriateness of the project
in the context of its Old Town Historical District setting and the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) for conceptual review of the project design. Both the CHC and ARC
supported the project design and provided direction on details to be included in the elevations
when the project returns to the ARC for final approval (see Attachments 4 and 5).
Given the positive reaction to the project from both the CHC and ARC and the applicant's
willingness to modify the design to better comply with applicable City plans and policies, staff is
recommending approval of the entitlements now before the Planning Commission as a
recommendation to the City Council. The following paragraphs discuss the various project
entitlements in more detail and their consistency with General Plan policy. Specific issues that
are discussed in more depth in the report are:
A. Parking — compliance with standards for the project, the use of tandem parking, and the
loss of off-site parking;
B. Open Space—consistency with the standards included in the condominium regulations.
1. General Plan Amendment/Zoning
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element in that the proposed
rezoning and general plan amendment involve adjusting the boundary line between existing
designations on the site, rather than changing them to another category that does not currently
exist at the site. Because the land use and zoning categories are simply being redistributed, the
proposed changes to the City's maps accommodate the planned redevelopment of the site with
'PN 1-2
GP/R, TR, ER 102-07 (Pacific Courtyards)
Page 5 Attachment 4
uses and improvements that will be compatible with other properties in the same block that are
either zoned Office or R-3, Medium-High Density Residential.
The R-3 and O zones are considered compatible zoning categories with very similar property
development standards including a 35-foot maximum height, a 15-foot street yard, and variable
other yard setback requirements that utilize the same Table 4 in the Zoning Regulations and are
based on building heights next to the property lines. Both zones are considered appropriate as
transitional uses between more intensive commercial and lower density residential areas.
The proposed residential component of the project is consistent with the intent of the R-3 zone to
"provide housing for smaller households desiring little open space" in areas that are "generally
close to commercial and public facilities serving the whole community". The office component
is consistent with the intent of the O zone to "provide offices and related functions close to
medical facilities and the downtown, convenient to public transportation and related
governmental and business services. "
The project is a mixed-use project in that there will be both a commercial land use, the offices,
along with residential units on a combined site. However, it is not the typical mixed use project
in that the mix of uses is more horizontal than vertical, with a zoning boundary that generally
serves as the dividing line between land uses. The only true vertical land use mix is that
residential Unit L is above office space on the third level. The project is integrated in that
building architecture has a unified theme and there will be shared parking facilities.
Although the proposed zoning solution may appear somewhat unique, other alternative zoning
strategies.proved more difficult to implement. The idea of a single zoning designation, either all
R-3 or all Office, was explored, but did not allow for the proposed residential density or mix of
uses. A single R-3 zone would have allowed the proposed residential density, but not
accommodated the office use. The Office zone allows for combined office and residential uses
on the site, but would not have accommodated the proposed residential density. The project site
in either the R-3 or Office zoning category is not sufficiently large to meet the one-acre minimum
for a Planned Development (PD) overlay, which may have accommodated the higher residential
density with an overall Office zoning.
2. Residential Component(Density& Affordable Housing)
The project site with 0.22 acres of Office zoning has an equivalent density of 2.64 units based
on a density of 12 units/acre. The 0.32 acres of R-3 zoning yields an equivalent density of 5.76
units based on a density of 18 units/acre. Therefore, the allowed density for the total site is 8.4
density units.
The applicant's plans showing nine two-bedroom units (9 x 1.0 = 9) and two one-bedroom units
(2 x 0.66 = 1.32) requires an equivalent density of 10.32 density units. To accommodate the
proposed number of residential units, a 25% density bonus has been requested resulting in an
allowed density of 10.5 units. To qualify for the density bonus, a minimum of 10% of the total
number of project units needs to be a deed-restricted affordable unit designated for very-low
PH 1 =2-1
GP/R, TR, ER 102-07 (Pacific Courtyards) J Attachment 4
Page 6
income households. The applicant has satisfied this requirement by designating the 800 square-
foot, one-bedroom unit as a deed-restricted affordable unit for very-low income households.
Earlier plans included one studio apartment as the designated affordable unit. Staff questioned
the equity of having such a significantly smaller unit as the designated affordable unit. The
applicant modified their proposal to change the unit mix to the current nine two-bedroom units
and two one-bedroom units to address the equity concern with one of the one-bedroom units as
the deed-restricted affordable unit.
3. Parking
Required & Provided Parking
The office component of the project at 8,840 square feet requires a total of 30 parking spaces
(8,800/300 = 30). The nine two-bedroom units require two spaces each (18), and the two one-
bedroom units requires 1.5 spaces (3), for a total of 21 parking spaces. The 11 residential units
require two guest spaces (one per 5 units). Therefore, the total project parking requirement is
53 spaces.
A total of 53 parking spaces are shown on plans with 44 spaces in the underground parking
garage and 10 spaces in the ground level parking court.. Out of the 44 underground spaces, 24 are
proposed in tandem. These tandem spaces are intended to be set aside for the use of the
residential component of the project.
Tandem Parking
The Zoning Regulations provide the following limited guidance on the use of tandem spaces in
projects by noting that. "For residential uses, when parking spaces are identified for the
exclusive use of occupants of a designated dwelling, required spaces may be arranged in tandem
(that is, one space behind the other) subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director." In this case, the tandem spaces could be approved by the ARC with their review of the
project design.
The ARC with their conceptual review of the project on April 21, 2008 endorsed the applicant's
parking proposal including the tandem spaces. Despite concerns raised by staff with the
functionality, efficiency and potential undesirable precedent related to the number and layout of
the tandem parking spaces, the ARC found that the tandem spaces are appropriate at this site on
the edge of downtown to accommodate more intensive infill types of projects.
There is a trend in many California communities for new infill projects to utilize tandem parking
spaces as a strategy to meet parking demand, while minimizing the site area devoted to parking.
At the national American Planning Association conference this April, most of the examples of
new urban infill projects with a mix of uses utilized tandem parking to some degree. Since
downtown areas were some of the earliest settled parts of communities, older developments in
and around the downtown were often developed without parking or parking that would not
conform to today's standards. This is the case in San Luis Obispo where the upper floors of
�M1 - 21
GP/R, TR, ER 102-07 (Pacific Courtyards) Attachment 4
Page 7
downtown buildings often contained apartments and the residents were not necessarily provided
with an on-site space. In the Old Town area of the city adjacent to the downtown, there are
many small residential projects that have more informal parking arrangements or rely on tandem
parking. This historic development pattern is pointed out not as justification for allowing
tandem parking here, but more to note that some new development ideas look to more modern
and formalized takes on old concepts.
There are limited examples of new, larger development projects in the City where tandem
parking,has been approved. With the Four Creeks Project, some of the residential units have
garage spaces with tandem parking. The Bermant Homes project at the corner of Marsh and
Nipomo, includes three extra spaces in tandem. Both these projects are newer examples of
projects with tandem spaces, but they differ from the subject project in terms of site context and
zoning.
An article from the Oakland Tribune is attached which discusses a proposal for the use of tandem
parking for a new multi-family project in Hayward, California. The article gives credence to the
trend to look at more flexible parking solutions such a tandem parking, but also points out some
of the downsides with their use such as maneuvering in tight places and the inconvenience it
creates for residents since they have to coordinate with other household members to access
spaces. To address these concerns, Condition No. Lk. is recommended to call to attention the
extra coordination and oversight that the tandem parking will require of both management and
residents of the project to operate efficiently.
Existing Parking Lots
The project site is currently developed as a surface parking lot that contains a total of 47 spaces.
The portions of the parking lot that are currently zoned R-3 are considered non-confirming uses
since parking as a principal use is not allowed in residential zones.
Currently the site is meeting a portion of the off-site parking (19 spaces) for the Mission Medical
complex at 1235 Osos Street. With project development, this off-site parking will no longer be
available. The Mission Medical offices are in the downtown parking district where in-lieu fees
can be paid to meet all or part of their parking commitment. The applicant intends to pay in-lieu
fees for the 19 off-site parking spaces that will be eliminated with development (Condition No.
3).
4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map
The City's Subdivision Regulations contain provisions for the development of new condominium
projects. Consistent with the General Plan and Community Design Guidelines, these provisions
contain standards for common and private open space, recreation amenities and storage.
10 of the 11 residential units are proposed in the R-3 zoning portion of the site. The only
exception is that Unit L is above office space on the third level of the building in the Office
portion of the site. The applicant has submitted sheets within their plans that show general
compliance with the standards for the R-3 zone of 100 square feet of private open space, 100
o 1 - 25
GP/R, TR, ER 102-07 (Pacific Courtyards) Attachment 4
Page 8
square feet of common open space, but fall short of meeting the 400 square feet of combined
total'open space per unit. The regulations also require that the project contain an indoor common
recreation facility of at least 20 square feet per unit or outdoor common recreation facility of at
least 40 square feet per unit. The applicant has opted for the exterior option and is proposing a
formal garden area just off the interior motor court. Storage must also be included for each unit
and shall include at least 200 cubic feet of enclosed, weatherproof and lockable private storage
space, exclusive of cabinets and closets within the unit. The following analysis evaluates the
proposed open space areas in the project against these established standards for the Commission
to have a qualitative basis to evaluate this aspect of the design.
Private Open Space (100 s.f. per unit)
Analysis: Sheet 3 of the 11" x 17"packet and Sheet G001 of the large-scale black line plans
includes a table entitled Open Space Summary. This table shows for each of the 11 residential
units the specific dimensions and overall areas of their qualifying private open space areas. To
qualify, open space must be private and directly accessible to the unit it serves. Private open
space areas on the ground must have a minimum dimension of 10 feet and those on upper
balconies and decks must be 6 feet. All of the units have qualifying private open spaces that are
at least 100 square feet in area.
Common Open Space (100 s.f. per unit) & Common Recreation Facility (40 s.f. per unit for
an outdoor facility)
Analysis: Applying the 100 square feet per unit standard, a minimum of 1,100 square feet of
common open space would be required. The project includes a common open space just outside
the motor court area that is accessed off of Morro Street. The summary table indicates that the
area is a total of 1,406 square feet. However, this calculated area includes the unloading area
of the adjacent accessible space which does not qualify as common open space. Therefore, the
area is approximately 1,200 square feet which still meets the minimum area requirements,
This area also serves as the required outdoor common recreation facility, which in this case
would need to be a minimum of 440 square feet. Sheet L-1 shows the common area calling out
that it will have an overhead trellis, public art, and perimeter landscaping. A more detailed plan
of the development of this area would be handled by the ARC's final review of project plans
Combined "Total" open space (400 s.f. per unit)
Analysis: The minimum total open space requirement.is square feet (11 X 400 = 4,400). The
project proposes about 3,100 square feet of total open space consisting of private open spaces
for the 11 residential units, the common open space area that incorporates the exterior
recreation facility, and two small outdoor patio areas in the office portion of the project. The
outdoor patios in the office portion are currently designed for the adjacent office spaces, rather
than benefiting the project as a whole. While they do provide an outdoor amenity, they would
need to be redesigned to add a place that residents might use on weekends or after office hours.
Staff routinely would not support an exception to the total open space standards. However, there
I XJ- - 2 .
GP/R, TR, ER 102-07 (Pacific Courtyards) Attachment 4
Page 9
are legitimately reasons to support the deficiency in meeting the total open space requirements
in this particular case, which are:
1) The project's location on the edge of the downtown core differentiates it from other R-3
zoning districts located in more outlying areas;
2) The site is within close proximity to Mitchell Park which provides an accessible common
open space with many amenities that can be conveniently used by residents
3) The design of the project is consistent with the intent of the R-3 zone to "provide housing
for smaller households desiring little open space" in that all units have qualifying
private open spaces and convenient access to public open spaces are within a convenient
walking distance, most notably Mitchell Park.
4) The site has a spilt zoning. Commercial zoning categories such as the office zone do not
have specific open space requirements for condominium projects. As described earlier,
an overall Office zoning for the site was considered, but would not have accommodated
the desired residential density. Providing housing at this prime location on the edge of
downtown is consistent with many General Plan policies and support of this exception
helps achieve this goal.
5) This exception is warranted and allowed as an affordable housing incentive.
Storage (200 cubic feet per unit)
Analysis: The minimum private storage space requirement for each unit is 200 cubic feet. The
applicant's statement notes that the storage areas will be located in the parking garage. There
are storage areas identified in the garage, but plans do not demonstrate how the storage
requirement is met. It appears that there are solutions available to provide the storage in the
garage area. Condition No. S is recommended that plans submitted for final architectural
review clearly show how the lockable private storage for each unit is provided.
5. Environmental Review
City staff has completed a detailed initial study which evaluates the potential environmental
effects of the project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On
June 16, 2008, the Community Development Director recommended adoption of a Negative
Declaration with Mitigation Measures for the project, based on the conclusions included in the
initial study. Mitigation measures are included to address potential impacts related to site
excavation and grading activities, specifically the potential to encounter either archaeological
resources or soil contamination.
The City's Public Works Department (Transportation Division) did not require a full traffic
analysis, but did direct the applicant to prepare a focused traffic analysis looking at the project's
potential impact on the operation of the Bill Roalman Bicycle Boulevard and the intersection at
Pacific Street and Morro Street. Mitigation measures are included to eliminate on-street parking
within 25 feet of the project's Morro Street driveway to the north and within 50 feet to the south
to provide for adequate sight distance; and to install additional "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop"
signs on the back of the existing stop signs at the intersection of Morro and Pacific Streets to
reinforce the message of the two-way stop controls.
PH - 25
GP/R, TR, ER 102-07 (Pacinc Courtyards)
Page 10 Attachment 4
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may recommend different zoning categories or another land use
configuration than included in the staff recommendation.
2. The Commission may continue action if additional information is needed in order to
render a decision.
3. The Commission may deny the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning,
based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan. Planning Commission
denial would be final unless appealed.
4. The Commission may recommend denial of the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract
Map to create both residential and commercial condominiums based on inconsistency
with the Subdivision Regulations
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The comments and recommendations of various City departments are reflected in the discussion
and the mitigation measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporated in
conditions of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map.
Attached:
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Reduced-size copies of project plans including the Vesting Tentative Tract
Map.
Attachment 3 Applicant's Project Statement/Supplement
Attachment 4: 4-21-08 ARC follow-up letter and minutes
Attachment 5: 5-19-08 CHC follow-up letter and draft minutes
Attachment 6: Initial Study ER 102-07
Attachment 7: Oakland Tribune article regarding tandem parking
Attachment 8: E-mail correspondences of support from Brian Starr dated 4-17-08 & Steven
Saldo dated 5-8-08
Attachment 9: Draft Planning Commission Resolution
Enclosed: Full-size project plans and l l"x 17" colored plans and elevations
L:Pacific Courtyards 102-07\Staff Reports\102-07(Pacific Courtyards PC report 6-25-08)
PHI 21G
VICINITY MAP File No. 1 02=07
1321 & 1327 OSOS
II _� JN
-Aft
"c Afac�r4
•S �� �i{:t' �1`awl\J1 ^ � � _ ^m �� Fnn
tT wl.• i
� ,� .• __ �s €� ����� a a. � ee; _! � �.� � g�� �gg -
Rz: E.
I ill fill
wilho
Ag
fin A .1 14 M
N
d V N IIINI01A F
A=§ $e_H4e^ARFAAE $RSA A=8
a � sYe,Y,wE_0.10 pp�
Oe99
W g° a 3 _'sab :p 6 S o 9
J ,.a.....
$�<m
n=
LU
E § ssg §F
4Y $ g 5 9A x.-T
vEe
COD
d`
z e 3 q Aez s€ 43 5
OyLL. ry K :i 6 e 3 ui Y
J — e
z _j B
L7 Q Q PF H S
� y V 5 G6 8�$ ^------ae—^
I.L s n €
_ 99 as gal ;
m {9S$5HH^.H$H^
y p P7 -a
------------r
AI � 0000 o
. �00 .D°` . h_1
491
®i 9� ..
666;I 11 5g��� 11 a C
-a pppp
I gal m
PN1-Z�'
a I
1 Ilj�
3+.11 YV .l:J I5KFN`Ia
�J tr u 'cJ
r
h
un 15a y
i
22
Yc M ♦ b ! �
u. IM
$� 1
l'f\..k xXS spa y+� I.nrll �.rM
I
J�b ✓L_l a _
1y�GkF�y.��-I jJors
Attachment 4
----------------------------------------------- ------
'.LS Soso
N= IWU r I NO7 i Wm
w:
z
71-
4
1 '19 Onow
- --------------------- -- --- -----------------------
Ho
Ef `-FSt i P PIM I`
Yn
I rTj li,
Al
CM
PH 1 -3(?
W
Attachment
A
FFF
I � i
I� a
I J
�x
I Na
i N
z N
� i2J
• W J
O
L VV5r
o Pt�i
i ` a
+ I
0
u
i , 30tltlO1S I
- - -
j j
tT-
I
j
I :
S. LLSIR .
Itp
_- 1
-----------
PHI -51
Vu I3 t I I � I W I E Y �t' iv v�Sv
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Attachment 4
'1S SOSO
-
I
i
z >
\ \ ��
0z
O
_ J
iT
9
�2
H w w
w� wm w
J
LU
J �(
0
U � TUW -
Zp(q Jpi
W Z 1 m�
yy
fy d 0 9�r a cal
0
I I^
� f=-- - � - tib , - i � • -si - >. ��
Z b F W i V A1'A Q
ma U 8
S
n- .-- -_ -- --- — --_ - --(1
T LI
UILL
W
Y LL x
Ib IRI
R
Op
wn NU 4t
DO
V W
yl -
- - �
• v a fal
-_-'is oaaow PM _ x
fd I 5 � y g6go
2� 1
Attachment 4
All F-s
_ I I
b } L
a
Q m O U J
b I a
Z Z Zg Z I o
W
J
# I >
S" W
J�
Z�
y O:
Wi
N:
-
0
.FF LL .i-G 3-F� N2
q �yV
Z u�
a J I1—
.G-
} 1
W
I.p LL T
I'
N8
KK
W
S - LL y 4-F I •;
i0 .0
b.G P.4 .4-Fl
All 4-2
kI - 33
a
C eC rn
-
Attachment 4
A _ P-
PP_
F i'
-------
J.
-
:.I I
I �
T Q � ❑ .b U \ I Q
O
O
L J L J
W
_ wp
J-
OS
u
.O
I
•4-,i� o-1•G 3-A� �
3-F
Y >_
i
J _
Fo Z9 i
e I STI
b I
W
U LL i T
rt LL 1 I
yF A:L
Jl
I W
ISN 1 - 34
i—
IVIS i ,
VIII 1■pM �)if .i
.,s
Q) s7p' it-No F
373=` '• rl.. �
not
44
isa
jai
�!�='3��iI - Iii '• .l
� IiA c
_ iii � tl�"i�. �'�.a� ��+'..•.w
It
Ail
a� Sam
',i '� ��"iidbi�se■■' 'I II
Ili_:: Ri�'� Il�l:i•4 ���i�c..:���i,i� i`_
I I 1 all II�
' �"s
I Mot �=
-j...; �i7�'� III .��.0■t
I-- w
' "rarer-. ���•� :I ,
a 16 z -66
0
Ln
Attachment 4
LL
J-i 0
'7
Fl
O
ZEE Mmol
rpof s of
-
o
LL
vi 3
i7
0-11
'3.r
w m
3z� ioiFmAttachment 4
I .i,j_ , N
moo
N
¢ w w w U O
g v 0 o v F-
w w
¢ O u
U U
W W
'HIIO] I(A Z S I ! I Z S
I
I
I I I I I j I I I
i i i I i i
0
rc
- a
i
u
I
F-
z � w
- N
w
NA
Wt
I
z£
0
—QJ
I I I
P�St 37
/� wn°usuopuoO fo.1 FIT i.i9 E
pp r° 4 �p�is _ �i"Y°t 6p"i
`g p i�p+!°€t=7 A3Adns 1VO1HdV8E)Od01 HZt_ &I"' --
g 3 (bee $i! 13[It7i�ct spfe
3 sA,�3�f 43ii e3sE ,' tr:t49FesEE�
pp
AttachmentMH
4
n k{{ gg e p @ ®
TvA a $ i4�
I� s i ➢�$'
f_ fl 9� 3 flee.• [��
o
>
�� � ate•� 5 1 Fz
e � S
e Yq i '�r
2 i '1
•4SYS.•^,7�Yx=�YYBf Fy,tY j __ ,s _ � q $'t Y ! RF
• C dy y a `! � � Y
E�
Z ep y _ / u
EY ii ! s W
I
---------------------
0.
" I
%'• � �;tom` �_ =-'- r' 3 I' ,f
t a
o
,
C
Sr
7 r
r '
(' _ , II n '�,• � ''
Ali 11
z
I,.
` 1 it J ,_- --_.- .__- ._ -•� -_�� _-. _ - ._ - - - -- � I _.,. oa
r }9 Ia Ab pp 1 IIII
o S3 V 11 4li�P s WIUI
(�1Eftt3�; TiAmaNnoa�
@t s€(p {j j;i0df2a!'I NMId ONIMID ANVNIW113ad
3 l3fidf3vi aid! lr9i4[f��Yif spieAano
_ .
" Attachment Q
w ➢ � � i �� Pp�a i
I 65 B ^bn gIN
a� " f
Jil
igd n p�➢ .a 6 a IM, P l- yp £ g y➢yp➢)�➢ g g
W O 1E# { s PP ➢ °pp g3 3 y{d S4 ng {WN
z z ie CI
8Q b 3 eS"".'y 3e a pp � �n�n IIeggYd 9® K3 e•'e g i' s
o e g^_ p �• 5 4 4F aw 9Y. ��- g h i A I s g g
w � �� � �i; �v 3� d �S"p iF� $�En�2a q N - �@ i$ E{{� ➢e � w $ s 9 =ra
> � x�S o�5 ^➢ � �3 €� ➢;.& � "r d �� °��'�����'� ;i��! w gg6 .� 2�� -'.. r e p 8 � � � � "e
i pp=3
19
I t _ . . .
Jt
-
am
s �
I 1
e e I
Xie..
a.rva 1
-- - ------------------ - _. .--I f - ------------
-
--— -- -
� 11
PHI-
t►rl,latgEg SM31A N01103S SS080 wt
w �a �" b tgf:E7i99Ea CNV
z
.PPP' BZ6i.S=Eg�`!gi,at NV'Id 800ld SPJU
3 . 3 i153., °fi gfi��4gg�
z =
Attachment 4
-J t- t K'3 .3 xp
p i �' °Z�tB
e7 S 3v3a s €
6„� u
6N_ M & 84 p
a i F
ag x i1�I ' Iw
�' d rw
`� I I= v• ..,,. t to lwn '' _ {%�g
Hewn,
- t�
0 0
� _ np �,
w
LL +
w 'il<i 19 1 I
o I'
' M
P �
—
pN1
d 3 �
�g g Attac6ent`4
�$
4 J s 3C$ �
)I `}�a,3YYE$
a 8
<< �� gg{�}}od�Y
N
�3 W 3
13US SOSO
•+. 4 3��g5 3C
I cE i ^�4 d I ,3§ �} gy ➢gg`� p' ii�o O 3G � ����JPI V�g�
e e g_g
pa
77
4c pp .3
41
13381S Onow S 3 o b
v
5
�c 5
i em
PH1-
Attachment 4
PROJECT STATEMENT/SUPPLEMENT
to the application for the proposed
PACTRC COURTYARDS
Planned Development,Rezone&
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.2928
APN 002-442-013,014 and 020
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
August 17,2007, rev.01 February 2008,rev.01 July 2008
I. PROJECT INTRODUCTION
A. Project History
As part of the downtown infill process the project proponent (Applicant) has decided to develop the
existing surface parking lot located mid-block on Osos and Morro Street between Pismo Street and
Pacific Street into a mixed-use project. As a supplement to the application for the rezone (see attached
graphic depicting ex. v. proposed zoning, dated September 24, 2007), mixed-use development and a
vesting tentative tract map, the following represents the description and details of the proposed project.
The Applicant has reviewed and considered the relevant portions of the City of San Luis Obispo's
General Plan and related Elements,met with Administrative staff, Community Development Department,
Utilities,and Public Works staff prior to formulating this request.
B. Project Applicant C.Applicant's Agent
Mission Medical Partners,LLC C.M.Florence,AICP
c/o Hamish Marshall Oasis Associates, Inc.
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 100 3427 Miguelito Court
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
805.544.7343 805.541.4509
Hamish@,westaacusa.com cmfna,oasisassoc.com
D. Project Architect E.Project Civil Engineer
Jonathan V.Watts,AIA Brad Brechwald,P.E.
Cuningham Group Wallace Group
4056 Del Rey Avenue 4115 Broad Street, Suit B-5
Marina del Rey,CA 90292 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 `
310.306.9102 805.544.4011
jwatts(a)a,cuningham.com bradb(d,wallacegroup.us
E. Property Location/Existing Conditions
The proposed infill, mixed-use development comprised of three privately owned parcels (APNs 002-442-
013, 014 and 020). The parcels are part of Mission Vineyards Track, Block 106, consisting of 14,074
T14 1 "�Z
Attachment 4
square foot/0.32 acre R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential)zoned property and 9,526 square foot/0.22
acre O (Office) zoned property bordered by Morro Street on the west, Osos Street on the east, existing
Office (0) zoned properties and Pacific Street to the north and existing R-3 zoned properties and Pismo
Street to the south.
G. Surrounding Land Use:
The surrounding land uses to the project site is a mix between Medium-High Density Residential and
Office zoning. The following list represents the adjacent businesses and zoning.
North— Pacific Street
Office zoned property-Surface parking lot,Niner Wine Estates(13 22 Morro)and Seventh Day
Adventist Church
South— Pismo Street
R-3 zoned property-Miscellaneous Office(1336 Morro),one existing house(1346 Morro),
two existing duplex(954/956 Pismo and 958/960 Pismo) and Rio Bravo Apartments
East— Osos Street
Office&R-3 zoned property-Grace Church, San Luis Pension Consultants and McDaniel
Shorthand Reporting
West— Morro Street
Office&R-3 zoned property-Apartments(1345 A&B),existing residence(1335 Morro)and
First American Title Insurance
H. Project Description
The proposed project is a one (1) lot vesting tentative tract map #2928 for condominium purposes and a
mixed-use development that includes both office and residential components. The office component
consists of 8,840 square feet and includes an entry and office lobby on Morro Street, an elevator and two
common restrooms.The residential component of the project consists of nine(9)two-bedroom residential
units with an average size of 1,335 square feet and two(2) studio units with an average size of 935 square
feet. A separate residential lobby is located to the rear of the residential units off Osos Street.
Both private and common open space areas will be provided for the residential use,pursuant to Municipal
Code Section 16.17.030. The project proposes 1,362 square feet of private residential open space of the
1,000 square feet required as well as 200 cubic feet of lockable storage per unit. In addition the project
proposes 610 square feet of private office open space. (See II.H. below for an Open Space Summary).
Parking is located on both a subterranean level and at street level. Both office and residential parking
spaces will be located on the subterranean level. Ten (10)parking spaces will be retained on street level
while forty-four (44) spaces will be located on the subterranean level along with two (2) motorcycle
spaces. Access to the surface level parking will be from Osos Street. Access to the subterranean level
parking will be from Morro Street. Both short- and long-term bicycle parking is provided pursuant to the
Zoning Regulations. (See II.G. below for a Parking Summary).
Oasis Associates,Inc. August 17,2007,rev.01 February 2008
Mission Medical Partners,LLC Pacific Courtyards Mixed Use Development
2
PN 1 -43
Attachment 4
11. PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Purpose and Application
The R-3 zone is intended primarily to provide housing opportunities for smaller households
desiring little private open space and to provide various types of group housing. These areas are
generally close to commercial and public facilities serving the whole community and generally
committed to this type of development. (Source: Zoning Regulations—§17.28.010)
The O zone is intended to provide for offices and related functions close to medical facilities and
the downtown, convenient to public transportation and related government and business services.
The O zone is also intended to provide for the continuation and development of residential uses
where they will be compatible with neighboring offices. (Source: Zoning Regulations—
§17.34.010)
B. Density
The R-3 zone allows for a residential density of a maximum of eighteen (18)units per net acre while the
O zone allows for a residential density of twelve (12) units per net acre. Thus, of the project site, 0.32
acres are zoned R-3 and 0.22 acres zoned O. The proposed project consists of eleven (11) residential
dwelling units based upon the following density calculations.
"Density" is the number of dwellings per net acre, measured in density units. IN the AG, C/OS
and R-1 zones each dwelling counts as one density unit. IN other zones, different size dwellings
have density nit values as follows: (Ord. 1365 (2000 series)(part))
a. Studio apartment, 0.50 unit;
b. One-bedroom dwelling, 0.66 unit;
C. Two-bedroom dwelling, 1.0 unit;
d. Three-bedroom dwelling, 1.50 units;
e. Dwelling with four or more bedrooms, 2.00 units. (Source: Zoning Regulations—
§17.16.010)
Allowed
0.22 ac. Office = 2.64 DU/AC
0.32 ac. R-3 = 5.76 DU/AC
0.54 ac. = 8.40 DU/AC
Proposed
(9) 2-Bedroom townhomes = 9.00 DU/AC
_ (2) Studio units = 1.00 DU/AC
(11) Total Units = 10.00 DU/AC
Oasis Associates,Inc. August 17,2007,rev.01 February 2008
Mission Medical Partners,LLC Pacific Courtyards Mixed Use Development
3
PHI- 141J
4•
j:
Attachment 4
Inclusionary Housing Requirements
New development project shall satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements, as
specified in Tables 2 and 2A of the general plan housing element, which provide that all
nonexempt development projects shall contribute toward the production of affordable
housing by constructing at least one affordable dwelling unit or paying an in-lieu fee. To
meet the requirements, the developer shall comply with one or more of the following
methods:
1. Construct the required number of affordable dwelling units, as specified in Table
2, as adjusted by Table 1A;or
2. Pay an 'in=lieu fee as described in Table 2, as adjusted by 2A equals zero ("0'),
the minimum adjustment factor shall be 0.25 (resulting in a minimum in-lieu fee
of 1.25 percent of the building valuation for n-city development projects and
commercial developments in expansion areas, and 3.75 percent of building
valuation for residential developments in expansion areas); or
3. Dedicate real property for affordable housing; or
4. Use a combination of the above methods, to the approval of the city council.
(Source: Zoning Regulations—§17.91.040)
Residential Zoning
Zoning Acreage Proposed Allowed
O 0.22 9 -2-Bedroom units 3.3 DU
R-3 0.32 2-Studio 7.2 DU
Total 0.54 10.0 DU 10.5 DUt
Footnotes:
1. These calculations are based upon a 25%density bonus for very-low income housing.
When a developer agrees to construct at least ten percent of the units otherwise
allowable under the zoning regulations for very-low income households, the director
shall grant the developer, upon the developers request, a density bonus equivalent to an
increase in density of at least twenty-five percent over he density normally allowed by the
zoning regulations; and the developer shall be eligible for at least one of the development
incentives described in section 17.90.050. (Source: Zoning Regulations—§17.90.03 0)
C. Maximum Floor Area Ratio
The maximum floor area ratio (FAR):,the ratio of gross building floor area to site area in the O zone shall
not exceed 1.5. While the R-3 zone does not have a maximum FAR, we have reported FAR for the entire
project based upon the O zone requirements. The proposed project floor area ratio is 1.18. The FAR is
derived from the following:
Gross building floor area 27,857 SF = 1.18 FAR
Project site area 23,600 SF
Oasis Associates,Inc. August 17, 2007,rev.01 February 2008
Mission Medical Partners,LLC Pacific Courtyards Mixed Use Development
4
P�11 - 4ce
Attachment 4
D. Yards
Street yards in the R-3 and O zones are to be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. The proposed street yard
setback from Morro Street is fifteen feet, while the street yard setback from Osos Street is fifteen (15)
feet. The "other" yards are measured from the property line to the nearest point on the building. The
proposed building steps back with increasing height to maintain the relation of the height versus yard
setbacks. (Refer to site sections, Sheets A350&A351).
E. Maximum Height
The maximum building height in the R-3 zone is 35 feet while the maximum height in the O zone is 25
feet. The project proposes building heights of 33 feet to 35 feet with architectural elements extending to
44 feet. Two items are noteworthy: 1) the Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5 — Residential
Project Design Guidelines that provide guidance and specific criteria for infill development and multi-
family and clustered housing design; and 2) the Community Design Guidelines, Section 3.4—Guidelines
for Specific Commercial and Industrial uses that provide specific guidelines for office structures
including site planning and building design.
The proposed project represents a design with a thoughtful selection of building materials to enhance
desired neighborhood qualities such as compatibility, continuity, and harmony. The project reflects a
deliberate and thoughtful overall architectural character incorporating traditional architectural
characteristics of existing structures including roof style,pitch, ornamentation, and windows, appropriate
building proportions and articulation, notable rhythm(s) to the new building facades including the use of
balconies,courtyards, and roof gardens.
Positioned on the edge of the downtown district of San Luis Obispo, the proposed three-story building
seeks to enhance and complement the historical character of the neighborhood. The proposed new
construction presents a contemporary Victorian style of architecture. Hardip lank siding, an
environmentally friendly manufactured siding, which has a longer life than natural wood siding, will be
used in conjunction with integral color exterior plaster as the two primary materials. The colors on the
building are characteristic of the Victorian aesthetic and complimentary with the other buildings within
the neighborhood. These materials and colors are designed to highlight and enhance the articulation of all
the form and elevations, which employ gables, bay windows, balconies, wide trim and architectural
layering as their design vocabulary.
The west elevation along Morro Street presents the public office
xea � ^e�t ~ lobby to the street. The plaza in front of the office lobby will be
landscaped with planters and ornamental paving to mark the
entrance on the street. A path along the southern property line
leads to the ground level office.spaces,as well as a connection to
the inner courtyard of the project.
The eaves of the east elevation along Osos Street mimic the
proportion and scale of the eaves of the church at the corner of
Osos and Pacific. The project seeks to create a meaningful ' �
1
relationship with the street and to contribute to the vitality of the
street. The Osos Street elevation also presents a residentially r s
Oasis Associates,Inc. August 17,2007,rev.01 February 2008
Mission Medical Partners,LLC Pacific Courtyards Mixed Use Development
5
PH1 - �f �
Attachment 4
l
scaled facade with front yard patios, landscaping, stoops, and upper level balconies. The building steps
down on the Osos Street
frontage and on the north side to
be sensitive to the heights of the
neighboring buildings adjacent
to the proposed project.
The south elevation is shaded with overhangs and has windows with tinted glass to mitigate heat gain
from the sun. Both interior and exterior circulation for the proposed office spaces occur along the south
elevation at the second and third levels of the building. The interior courtyard features a landscaped
common space for residents
to congregate with a trellis
overhead structure and
generous landscaping.
r
This project has been
carefully studied to fit the
uses,massing and styling of this particular location. It will act as a complement to the church and provide
an important mixed-use lifestyle on the edge of the downtown area.
F. Maximum Coverage
Maximum allowable coverage(i.e.,the area of a lot covered by the footprint of all structures expressed as
a percentage of the total lot area) for the R-3 and O zones is 60%. The proposed project coverage is
56.0%or 13,332 square feet.
G. Parking
The property development standards allow for the parking space requirement to be met in a variety of
ways: on the site occupied by the use; off-site; participating in a parking district; participating in an in-
lieu fee program; and any combination of the above-mentioned.
ON-SITE PARKING REQUIRED
Number of Spaces Type
Office 30 standard (11300 s f.)
Residential 21 standard (2 spaces 12 bedroom unit& I space/studio)
Guest 2 standard U space/5 units)
Total Required 53 spaces
ON-SITE PARKING PROVIDED
Number of Spaces Type
Basement Level
Standard 20 standard
Standard 0 compact
Oasis Associates, Inc. August 17,2007,rev.01 February 2008
Mission Medical Partners,LLC Pacific Courtyards Mixed Use Development
6
PHI -LJ7
Attachment 4
Tandem 24 tandem
Ground Floor
Standard 8 standard
Standard 2 compact
Total Provided 54 spaces
ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED
Total Parking Provided Required Number of Accessible Spaces
51 to 75 3
(Source: California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook—Fig.22)
ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED
Note:Accessible parking s aces are included in parking count.
Office Guest Resident
Ground Floor 1 0 0 1 space
Basement Level 0 1 1 2 spaces
Total 1 1 1 3 spaces
OTHER PARKING PROVIDED
Motorcycle 4 standard (1 space 120 required spaces)
Bicycle 2 short-term(5%-R-3 parking 100%short-term, 15%- O
Bicycle 21 long-term parking 10%short-term &80%long-term)
H. Open Space
The Applicant has utilized the Municipal Code 16.17.030 — Residential Condominium Development
standards for R-3 zone to determinethe design and amount of requisite open space and storage areas.
Private open space will be provided for all units through the implementation of patios,balconies and roof
decks. Common open space in the form of courtyards and garden areas offer a variety of outdoor
environments that will be accessible by all residents. The following describes the existing standard(s)and
the project's proposed private and common open space areas,recreational facilities and storage facilities.
Private Residential Open Space
Total Required Private Open Space @100 SF/unit
(or) 11 units x 100 SF= 1,100 SF
Total Provided Private Open Space= 1,289 SF
Oasis Associates,Inc. August 17,2007,rev.01 February 2008
Mission Medical Partners,LLC Pacific Courtyards Mixed Use Development
7
PHI -q8
r
I�
Attachment $
5 '
Common.Residential Open Space
Total Required Common Open Space @100 SF/unit
(or) 11 units x 100 SF= 1,100 SF
Total Provided Common Open Space
Residential Garden= 1,406 SF
Common Recreational Facilities
Outdoor Required Facilities @ 40 SF/unit
(or) 11 units x 40 SF= 440 SF
Total Provided Facilities
Outdoor BBQ and Seating = 1,406 SF
Storage and Facilities
Lockable storage for each residential unit(200 cubic yards/unit)will be located in the subterranean level.
Laundry Facilities
Specific areas for laundry facilities will be provided in each individual residential unit.
I. Project Entitlements
In order to process the proposed mixed-use project, the Applicant will be requesting the following
entitlements and approvals.
• Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map Approvals
• Environmental Determination
• Architectural Review and ultimately,
• Final Map Approval
• Building Permit Approval
III.CODE AND REGULATION CONFORMANCE
A. Land Use Element
The Land Use Element contains a number of policies that encourage mixed-use projects and specifically
housing outside of existing residential zones. The following excerpts from the Land Use Element
provided guidance to the Applicant and design team during the early phases of project development.
LU 2.2.1 — Neighborhoods shall include a mix of uses to serve the daily needs of nearby
residents...when nonresidential, neighborhood-serving uses are developed, existing
housing shall be preserved.
LU 2.2.6 — All residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods.
LU 2.2.7 — Where housing can be compatible with offices or other business,mixed-use projects
should be encouraged.
Oasis Associates,Inc. August 17,2007,rev.01 February 2008
Mission Medical Partners,LLC Pacific Courtyards Mixed Use Development
8
pH1 - yq
Attachment 4
LU 2.2.10 — Housing built within an existing neighborhood... should be compatible with any nearby,
lower density residential development. New buildings should respect existing buildings
...new building will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and
outdoor areas.
LU 2.9 — Additional dwellings may be permitted...provided that the existing character of the area
is not significantly changed.
LU 2.12 — The City will considered adopting special development standards to guide additional of
dwellings within downtown residential areas...new buildings reflect the mass and spacing
of existing,nearby buildings. Requiring special parking and coverage standards.
Requiring minimum amounts of useable open space.
LU 3.4.2 — All types of offices activities are appropriate in the Office district,which surrounds the
downtown commercial area.
LU 3.9.7 — The City will... revise its zoning standards,as necessary,to better achieve the desired
architectural character of downtown areas zoned"office"and"residential-office."
The LUE policies regarding Downtown, its role as the cultural, social and political center of the City and
the City's expressed desire to have its commercial core be economically healthy, resonated with the
Applicant and design team members. There are a number of policies that relate specifically to and are at
the foundation of the proposed project.These include,but are not necessarily limited to,the following:
LU 4.2.1 — Residential uses contribute to the character of the area,allow a 24-hour presence,which
enhances security,and helps the balance between jobs and housing in the community.
Existing residential uses within and around the commercial core should be protected,and
new ones should be developed. All new, large commercial projects should include
dwellings.
LU 4.5 — Downtown should provide safe,exciting places for walking and pleasant places for
sitting... mid-block walkways,courtyards should be integrated with.new and remodeled
buildings.
LU 4.12 — New buildings should be compatible with architecturally and historically significant
buildings,but not necessarily the same style.
LU 4.16 — Design Principles in the commercial core that relate to: 1) Street Level Activities; 2)
Upper Floor Dwellings; 3) Continuous Storefronts; 4) Building Height; 5) Building
Width; 6) Sidewalk Appeal.
Utilizing the above-mentioned principles, the design team has created a project that extends the existing
office uses along Morro Street and existing residential uses along Osos Street. The proposal displays the
rhythm of the individual storefront with building articulation that provides for an understandable and
unique approach to the increased building height.
C. Housing Element
The Housing Element encourages the development of housing above ground-level retail stores and offices
to provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to use land efficiently (Policy 5.2.3). In
addition, the Housing Element describes a specific program to provide incentives to encourage additional
housing in the Downtown Core, particularly in mixed-use development. Incentives may include flexible
density, use, height, or parking provisions, fee reduction, and streamlined development review and permit
processing (Program 6.3.3). to help meet the desired housing within the Downtown Core, the City is to
Oasis Associates,Inc. August 17,2007,rev.01 February 2008
Mission Medical Partners,LLC Pacific Courtyards Mixed Use Development
9
a�1 -
Attachment 4
amend the Parking Management program to promote housing in the Downtown Core by allowing flexible
use of city parking facilities by Downtown residents, where appropriate. Such use may include
requirements for parking use fees, use limitations and enforcement provisions (Programs 6.3.4). In
addition the City intends to balance City efforts to encourage residential development by focusing as
much on infill development and densification within City Limits as on annexation of new residential land
(Program 6.3.9). The City encourages higher density housing that maintains high quality standards for
unit design, privacy, security, on-site amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards
should be flexible enough to allow innovative design solutions in special circumstances, e.g. in
developing mixed-use developments or in housing in the Downtown Core(Policy 7.2.2).
The proposed project's mixed-use format supports the goals, policies and programs related to increasing
housing within the Downtown Core. The project will add eleven (11)housing units in conjunction with a
floor area ratio of 1.18. Parking for the residential use is calculated at two (2) parking space/two-
bedroom unit and one(1)parking space/studio unit.
The City's Zoning Regulations offer incentives for housing projects that are willing to provide housing to
moderate income, low income and very-low income families. When a project meets the percentage of
restricted units set forth by the Zoning Regulations the project is granted,upon request,a density bonus
equivalent to an increase in density of at least twenty-five(25)percent. The following project has been
designed to have one(1)unit designated to very-low income family. This qualifies the project for the
twenty-five(25)percent density bonus.
Zoning Acreage Proposed Density Allowed Density Allowed
(Based on Acrea a Bonus
O 0.22 9-2-Bdr.units 2.64 DU 0.66 DU 3.3 DU
R-3 0.32 2-Studio 5.76 DU 1.44 DU 7.2 DU
Total 0.54 10.0 DU 8.4 DU 2.10 DU 10.5 DUI
The office component of the project consists of 8,840 square feet of office space. Based upon the
Inclusionary Housing Requirements and the small office component the project is only required to
provide the one (1) enforceably restricted affordable unit for the office portion of the project. The
Applicant intends to provide one (1) residential very-low deed restricted unit on-site and pay in-lieu fees
for the commercial component of the project.
D. Circulation Element
The Circulation Element addresses amenities that all new development should provide including
bikeways,bicycle storage,parking facilities,and convenient pedestrian access from nearby sidewalks and
pedestrian paths. The design team, in collaboration with the Public Works and Parking staff, has worked
toward a basic understanding of the vehicular and pedestrian circulation aspects of the project and how
those aspects relate to the overall traffic patterns in the Downtown Core. The design reflects this effort
and includes the following features.
• Ingress/egress to the subterranean parking level from Morro Street;
• Ingress/egress to the ground level public parking on Osos Street;
• Pedestrian access from the ground level public parking to Morro Street, Osos Street and Pacific
Street; and
Oasis Associates,Inc. August 17,2007,rev.01 February 2008
Mission Medical Partners,LLC Pacific Courtyards Mixed Use Development
10
PHI _ 15i
Attachment 4
• Public and private access to upper floors(stairways and elevators).
E. Noise Element
When approving new development for noise-sensitive users or noise sources, the City may require noise
mitigation. Based upon the Build-Out Noise Contours map (Figure 5 —Noise Element, May 1996), the
project is located within the 60—65dB contour. The maximum noise exposure for residences and offices
for outdoor activity areas is 60 dB. This is the noise level above which background noise is likely to
interfere with normal conversational speech. The maximum exposure for indoor spaces is 45dB,which is
the noise level above which intrusive sounds are likely to interfere with sleep. The Noise Element
describes a variety of noise mitigation measures that can be applied to the project's noise sensitive users.
Common and private open space areas are provided for both the residential and office components of the
project. Courtyards and patio/deck areas are predominately located internal to the project (i.e., buildings
surround the use areas)and away from the noise source(automobile traffic along Osos,Morro and Pismo,
and Pacific Streets). Construction methods superior to those of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) are
required for noise mitigation of new residences/office in areas exposed to greater than 60 Ldn, in order to
achieve an indoor noise level not greater than 45 Ldn. The difference between outdoor and indoor noise is
called Noise Level Reduction(NLR). Normal construction per UBC is sufficient to provide a NLR of 15
dB, even if some doors or windows are partially open for ventilation. Greater values of NLR can be
achieved only if doors and operable windows are fully closed and have tight seals.The following standard
mitigation package is proposed as part of the project description. These measures are suitable for
exposures of up to 65 Ldn(NLR of 20 dB).
1. Double stud walls between units and equal consideration for floor/ceiling assemblies;
2. Windows and sliding glass doors with low air leak rate frames and low emissive;and
3. Exterior doors of solid-core construction with frill perimeter weather stripping and threshold
seals.
F. Conservation and Open Space Element
The City is a supporter of using energy more efficiently by shifting to cleaner, renewable, locally
controlled energy sources and promotes the use of cost effective, renewable, non-depleting energy
sources wherever possible, both in new construction projects and in existing buildings and facilities(COS
Policy 4.21.4). In addition, the City encourages energy-efficient "green buildings" as certified by the
U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Program or
equivalent certification (COS Policy 4.21.6). The project architect has analyzed the project and prepared
a draft.LEED Rating System Project Checklist that includes the following items: sustainable sites; water
efficiency;energy and atmosphere; materials and resources; indoor environmental quality; and innovation
and design process. Each issue area contains individual "possible points", with total points rated as
follows:
Level of Certification Point Range
Certified 26-32
Silver 33-38
Gold 39-51
Platinum 52-69
The project's preliminary assessment will be submitted under a separate cover.
Oasis Associates,Inc. August 17,2007,rev.01 February 2008
Mission Medical Partners,LLC Pacific Courtyards Mixed Use Development
11
Attachment 4
The City also promotes higher-density, compact housing to achieve more efficient use of public facilities
and services, land resources, and to improve the jobs/housing balance (COS Policy 4.22.3). Higher
density development offers the best solution to managing growth and protecting our open space resources.
Placing new development into already urbanized areas, like the Downtown Core, that are equipped with
all the basic infrastructure like utilities, police and fire protection, school, and shops eliminates the
financial and environmental costs of stretching those services farther and farther our from the core of the
community. The proposed mixed-use project exemplifies the City's expressed goals and policies that
promote pedestrian-friendly, livable,walkable,convenient and attractive higher-density development.
G. Community Design Guidelines
The Community Design Guidelines speak directly to the importance of creating infill projects of high
architectural quality that are compatible with existing development. Preservation and rehabilitation
efforts in the older neighborhoods should protect the architectural features of a home that identify its
individual style and contribute to the character of the area. The design and development guidelines for
offices and infill residential address the following aspects:
• Street orientation: Office buildings should be built to the minimum.required setback with surface
parking located towards the rear or side of building with bicycle parking convenient to building
entrances. Residential units should maintain the prevailing setback pattern of the immediate
neighborhood.
• Building design: Primary building entrance should be designed as highly visible and significant
architectural feature. Depending on building scale and mass,it may be appropriate to place the
first floor at the minimum setback,with upper floors setback further. Residential buildings
should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the
neighborhood,including window and door spacing,exterior materials,roof style and pitch,
ornamentation and other details.
• Height: Where greater height is desired,an infill projects should setback upper floors from the
edge of the fust story to reduce impacts on adjacent smaller homes,and to protect solar access.
• Outdoor living areas: The use of balconies, verandas,porches,and courtyards within the building
form of infill structure is strongly encouraged.
• Exterior finish materials: The thoughtful selection of building materials can enhance desired
neighborhood qualities such as compatibility,continuity,and harmony.The design of infill
residential structures should incorporate an appropriate mixture of predominant materials found
in the neighborhood. Common materials in San Luis Obispo are smooth,troweled,or sand-
finished stucco,wood,horizontal clapboard siding, shingles,brick and stone.
• Colors: Color schemes for infill residential structures should consider the colors of existing
houses in the neighborhood to maintain compatibility.
The Applicant and design team have utilized the Community Design Guidelines and has included many
of the suggested features in the project. The office entry has been designed to be highly visible and
significant architectural features with both vertical and horizontal wall plane offsets and extensive
fenestration. As the building increases in height, the upper floors are setback to further complement
vertical and horizontal undulation. The building design incorporates traditional architectural
characteristics, shapes, exterior materials, roof style and pitch, and ornamentation from existing buildings
in the neighborhood. Private open space will be provided for all units through the implementation of
Oasis Associates,Inc. August 17,2007,rev.01 February 2008
Mission Medical Partners,LLC Pacific Courtyards Mixed Use Development
12 I
Attachment 4
patios,balconies and roof decks. Common open space in the form of courtyards and garden areas offer a
variety of outdoor environments. The exterior finish materials and colors of the building are extrapolated
from existing San Luis Obispo materials including stucco, wood, brick, and shingles and existing colors
within the adjacent neighborhood.
To communicate the project design features, the following exhibits have been created and formatted into
an 11"x 17"booklet..
• Aerial Photograph
• Landscape Plan
• Perspectives
• Four-sided elevations
• Sections—longitudinal and transverse
• Residential Unit Floor Plans
llOasir_serverloasis datalPacificCouMardslCorrespondencelR2-08ProjectDescp(W.doc
Oasis Associates,Inc. August 17,2007,rev.01 February 2008
Mission Medical Partners,LLC Pacific Courtyards Mixed Use Development
13
PHI -5q
} = Attachment 4
gill I II I II IIhIII�����,������Ill�IIIIIIII IIII►
city of sAn luis OBISPO
Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
April 24, 2008
Mission Medical Partners
895 Aerovista Place, #100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 102-07: 1321 & 1327 Osos Street
Conceptual architectural review of ,a new mixed-use project with
about 8,800 s.f. of office space and 11 residential units
Gentlemen:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of April 21, 2008, continued the
item to a date uncertain with direction to incorporate the following items into the project:
1. Create a suitable turnaround area at the end of the parking garage.
2. Provide additional documentation for how the tandem parking is envisioned to
work within the project and what oversight will be provided to insure that it
functions properly.
3. Eliminate the proposed compact spaces proposed within the ground level auto
court.
4. Modify the design of the elevator tower to be more in keeping with the roof forms
of the building.
5. Submit refined building elevations for final architectural review that clearly call out
all materials on plans and include details of windows, railings, and other
ornamental features, including dimensions to indicate their size and depth.
6. Modify the window styles to be more in scale with building walls and more
characteristic in form and details to the Victorian architectural style.
7. Submit a plan for solid waste service that has been approved by the City Utilities
Department and San Luis Garbage.
8. Review proposed tree removals and plans for protection of trees on adjacent
properties in the field with the City Arborist and reflect any specific
recommendations from the Arborist on revised plans.
E The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. PHI
1,
�` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. PCI 1 -55
Attachment 4
ARC 102-07 (1321 & 1327 Osos Street
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Pam Ricci at 781-7168.
Sincerely,
v /cGi
Pam Ricci, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
C. M. Florence
3427 Miguelito Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Gammon Partners II ETAL
c/o H. Marshall Investments, LLC
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(14
Attachment 4
ARC Minutes
April 21, 2008
Page 3
floor windows, a different rhythm to upper floor decks, and a greater focus on the
building's horizontal articulation.
Commr. Duffy supported the concept of the mixed-use building, but was concerned that
the applicant was trying to do too much with the building. He felt that the ground floor
windows should be larger and that the upper windows should be more proportionate to
fit in better with the other buildings in the area. He would like to see more horizontal
articulation on the proposed building.
Commr. Howard felt the building is attractive but had a difficult time seeing it in the
downtown. She felt that the applicant should use colors that are warmer and happier,
rather than the proposed colors which are more appropriate for commercial buildings.
She stated that there is a lack of transparency on the first floor of the building.
Vice-Chair Wilhelm commended the architect on creating a handsome building, but
suggested that the north end of the building should be more articulated. He agreed with
the goal of the tall, second-story windows to provide more light into the residential
spaces, but felt that there were ways to modify them to better comply with the
guidelines. He questioned to what degree the gateway location of the building affected
the Commission's review of the project.
Commr. Palazzo expressed concern that the project design did not fit well in the
downtown and that it didn't match any of the prevalent styles in the area.
Chairperson Root, stated that he liked the project but would like to see more articulation
in the building and a greater variety in the building's color palette. He recommended
that the awnings be more box-like, rather than shed style.
On motion by Vice-Chair Whilhelm to continue the item to a date uncertain with direction
to adopt recommendations 1, 2, & 4 with the following revisions: change "style" to
"design" in recommendation 1 and take out "more traditional" from recommendation 4
and insert "compatible." Seconded by Commr..Howard.
AYES: Commrs. Duffy, Howard, Vice-Chair Wilhelm, and Chairperson Root.
NOES: Commr. Palazzo
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Hopkins & Kambitsis.
Commr. Palazzo noted that he did not support the motion, because he felt that more
significant changes in the building design needed to occur for the building to fit into its
downtown setting.
The motion passed on a 4:1 vote.
3. 1321 & 1327 Osos Street ARC 102-07; Conceptual architectural review of a new
mixed-use project with about 8,800 s.f. of office space and 11 residential units; O &
R-3 zones; Mission Medical Partners, applicant. (Pam Ricci)
TH1-s7
ARC Minutes ( � Attachment 4
April 21, 2008
Page 4
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending to continue the
item to a date uncertain with direction to incorporate the following items into the project:
1. Create a suitable turnaround area at the end of the parking garage.
2. Provide additional documentation for how the tandem parking is envisioned to
work within the project with oversight provided to insure that it functions
properly.
3. Eliminate the proposed compact spaces proposed within the ground level auto
court.
4. Modify the design of the elevator tower to be more in keeping with the roof
forms of the building.
5. Submit refined building elevations for final architectural review that clearly call
out all materials on plans and include details of windows, railings, and other
ornamental features, including dimensions to indicate their size and depth.
6. Modify the window styles to be more in scale with building walls and more
characteristic in form and details to the Victorian architectural style.
7. Submit a plan for solid waste service that has been approved by the City
Utilities Department and San Luis Garbage.
8. Review proposed tree removals and plans for protection of trees on adjacent
properties in the field with the City Arborist and reflect any specific
recommendations from the Arborist on revised plans.
Pam explained that there would not be enough clearance beneath the building bridge
off of Osos Street to allow a garbage truck to enter. Therefore, the trash bins would
have to be wheeled out to the street on trash day. She explained that the project has
been reduced in size from a four-story building over parking to a three-story building
with underground parking. She stated that all of the trees currently on the property
would be removed except for those that lined Osos Street.
Carol Florence, Principal Planner of Oasis Associates, stated that the parking spot just
to the right of the elevator has been revised to be a turnaround spot. She stated that
she has met with the City Utilities Department and San Luis Garbage to work out a plan
for solid waste service. She mentioned that the applicant has been working with the
Seventh Day Adventist Church on this project to keep them in the loop and presented a
letter of support to the ARC from Brian Starr as a representative of the church.
Jonathan Watts, architect, explained that the use of tandem parking spaces is being
used a lot more in larger cities and that surveys have shown a positive reaction to
tandem parking spaces. He admitted that the elevator tower does not need to be as tall
as it is drawn and the roof form will be changed. He stated that this project would be as
green as possible and that the amount of glazing for windows was intentionally shown
as taking up more of wall planes (not true Victorian style) for energy efficiency. He
stated that two of the tandem spaces will be designated for the commercial spaces and
that the one-bedroom units will be assigned one parking spot each. He explained the
setbacks on the project range from 5 feet to 13 feet. He stated that the subterranean
parking would be secured with a lift gate and entrance would be granted with a key
card.
PHI _5�
ARC Minutes
April 21, 2008 Attachment 4
Page 5
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Stew Jenkins, San Luis Obispo, stated that he will be seeing the south-facing elevation
and is pleased with the design of the project. He had concerns with construction noise
and vibration. He suggested that the roof form of the elevator tower try to match the
Seventh Day Adventist Church. He would like the overhead electrical wires over his
backyard placed underground and more use of wood siding on the Pacific Street
elevation.
There were no further comments made by the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The ARC was enthusiastic about the new Victorian architecture of the building finding it
in keeping with its location in the Old Town Historical District and compatible with the
adjacent Seventh Day Adventist Church at 1301 Osos, a master list historical structure.
The ARC discussed the issues in the staff report including tandem parking for the
residential units and the elevator design. Overall, the Commission was pleased with the
project design, including the use of tandem parking in the underground garage and felt
that it was generally headed in the right direction.
Chairperson Root supported the project with the recommendations from staff.
Commr. Duffy supported the project with a recommendation to pay particular attention
to the articulation of the south building elevation.
Commr. Howard stated that tandem parking would be appropriate for this project given
its downtown setting. She stated that she would like to see more of the brick material
used on the elevations.
Vice-Chair Wilhelm mentioned that slate or a material with a slate appearance would be
appropriate for the roofing.
On motion by Commr. Howard to continue the item to a date uncertain with the eight
recommendations in the staff report. Seconded by Commr. Palazzo
AYES: Commrs. Duffy, Howard, Palazzo, Vice-Chair Wilhelm, and Chairperson
Root.
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Hopkins & Kambitsis.
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
4. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast - Pam Ricci provided an agenda forecast for the upcoming May
5 meeting. She handed out copies of a memo prepared by Associate Planner
PHI,
} Attachment 4
AL��II�Ih IIIIIIIIII������������I�II�Illlllllllll� IIID
city of sAn luis omspo
SubmsCommunity Development Department- 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
June 2, 2008
Mission Medical Partners
895 Aerovista Place, #100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 102-07: 1321 and 1327 Osos Street
Review of a new mixed-use project with about 8,800 s.f. of office
space and 11 residential units
Gentlemen:
The Cultural Heritage Committee, at its meeting of May 27, 2008, voted to recommend
to the Architectural Review Commission that the project be approved, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. The building style, character, and roof form of the new structure recall, and pay
homage to, the Master List Seventh Day Adventist Church at 1301 Osos Street
and complement the character of the surrounding Old Town Historic District.
2. The project is consistent with goals included in the City's Community Design
Guidelines of looking to the best nearby examples of architecture and preserving
the historic character, scale, and ambiance of the surrounding area.
Conditions
1. Modify the design of the elevator tower to be more in keeping with the roof forms
of the building.
2. Submit refined building elevations for final architectural review that clearly call out
all materials on plans and include details of windows, railings, and other
ornamental features, including dimensions to indicate their size and depth.
3. Modify the window styles to be more in scale with building walls and more
characteristic in form and details to the Victorian architectural style. Plans shall
include window details indicating the type of materials for the window frames and
mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Windows systems shall be wood or wood-
clad composite materials with true divided lights. Vinyl or aluminum windows are
prohibited.
EThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
�` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. PH 1 — U0
ARC 102-07(1321 and 1327(.;aOS St.) l Attachment 4
Page 2
4. Consider roofing and siding materials that complement the Victorian architectural
style such as a slate-appearing shingle or a decorative composition material for
the roof, and horizontal board for the siding.
5. Utilize the brick material to a greater degree as a foundation or bulkhead element.
The decision of the CHC is a recommendation to the ARC and, therefore, is not final.
The project will be scheduled for final review by the ARC after the rezoning and tract
map entitlements are reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council.
If you have any questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168.
Sincerely,
Kim Murry
Deputy Community Development Director
Long Range Planning
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
C. M. Florence
3427 Miguelito Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Gammon Partners II ETAL
c/o H. Marshall Invest., LLC
895 Aerovista Place, #100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
pN1 -U\
Draft CHC Minutes l
May 27, 2008 Attachment 4
Page 3
Findings
1. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
because proposed materials and architectural detailing will complement the historic
structure and add to the historic character of the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The scale and siting of the proposed addition is appropriate for this Medium-High
Density residential site.
3. The project is designed to complement the Old Town historic district and the
design complements adjacent residences in the neighborhood.
4. The original chimney is not historically significant and replacement will not detract
from the historic character of the Contributing property.
5. The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 3, new construction
or conversion of small structures, Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Conditions
1. The replacement chimney shall match the size, design, and dimensions of the
original chimney.
2. The replacement chimney cap shall match the original chimney cap with brick
detailing.
3) 1321 and 1327 Osos Street. ARC 102-07; Review of a new mixed-use project with
about 8,800 s.f. of office space and 11 residential units; O zone; Mission Medical
Partners, applicants. (Pam Ricci)
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, presented the staff report requesting the CHC recommend
to the ARC that the project be approved, based on findings, and recommended
conditions.
Carol Florence, Oasis Associates and agent for the applicant, noted that she has
contacted neighbors of the project and has secured the support of members of the
Seventh-Day Adventist Church. She stated that the project has been dramatically
changed since its initial submittal to the City. She felt the project complemented the
surrounding neighborhood.
Hamish Marshall, applicant, acknowledged that the elevator tower was out of proportion
with roof features and that it was overlooked when presented to the ARC. He stated
that the elevator tower is being redesigned based on the ARC's recommendations.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Steve Linder, San Luis Obispo, requested clarification of the number of parking spaces
proposed..
PHI -� 2
Draft CHC Minutes
Attachment 4
May 27, 2008
Page 4
There was no further public comment.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
Committee Member Landwehr stated that she would like to know the height of the
Seventh-Day Adventist Church in relation to this project and asked for a building
elevation that shows the historical church in relation to the project, showing scale and
massing.
Committee Member Crotser stated that he is comfortable with the height of the
proposed project. He suggested that the applicant work with the ARC on the details of
the windows to coordinate with the architectural style.
On a motion by Vice-Chair Fowler, seconded by Committee Member Breska, the
Committee voted 7:0 to recommend to the ARC that the project be approved, based on
the following findings, and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. The building style, character, and roof form of the new structure recall and pay
homage to the Master List. Seventh Day Adventist Church at 1301 Osos Street,
and complement the character of the surrounding Old Town Historic District.
2. The proposed project is consistent with goals included in the Community Design
Guidelines of looking to the best nearby examples of architecture and preserving
the historic character, scale and ambiance of the surrounding area.
Conditions
1. Modify the design of the elevator tower to be more in keeping with the roof forms
of the building.
2. Submit refined building elevations for final architectural review that clearly call out
all materials on plans and include details of windows, railings, and other
ornamental features, including dimensions to indicate their size and depth.
3. Modify the window styles to be more in scale with building walls and more
characteristic in form and details to the Victorian architectural style. Plans shall
include window details indicating the type of materials for the window frames and
mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Windows systems shall be wood or wood-
clad composite materials with true divided lights. Vinyl or aluminum windows are.
prohibited.
4. Consider roofing and siding materials that complement the Victorian architectural
style such as a slate-appearing shingle or a decorative composition material for
the roof, and horizontal board for the siding.
5. Utilize the brick material to a greater degree as a foundation or bulkhead element.
Attachment 4
�i►Illlf III IIIIIII�����III�IIIII IIIIII I�
City Of SAn WIS 0131SPO
Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 102-07
1. Project Title: Pacific Courtyards
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner(805) 781-7168
4. Project Location: 1321 & 1327 Osos Street& 1322 Morro (parking lot), San Luis Obispo, CA
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Applicant: Mission Medical Partners, LLC
c/o Hamish Marshall
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designations: Medium-High Density Residential & Office
7. Zoning: R-3-H, Medium-High Density Residential with the Historical Preservation
overlay, and O, Office
8. Description of the Project:
The applicant is proposing to build a mixed-use development project that includes a total of
8,840 square feet of office space and 11 condominium units. A driveway off of Morro Street
would provide access to a majority of the project parking spaces located in an underground
garage (a total of 44 spaces, 24 of which are proposed in tandem). Another driveway from Osos
Street would provide access to a small 10-space surface parking lot.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Three separate parcels comprise the project site which consists of a total of 23,600 square feet or
0.54 acres (1321 Osos Street - APN: 002-442-013); 1327 Osos Street - APN: 002-442-020; and
1322 Morro - parking lot, APN: 002-442-014) All of these parcels are currently used as surface
parking lots. The property is currently zoned both for residential use (R-3) and offices (0). The
southern portion of the site is included in the Old Town Historical District.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ). INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
EThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
�` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ?H1 — (0 q
ATTACHMENT 4
Surrounding development includes the Seventh Day Adventist Church at the corner of Osos and
Pacific Streets (1301 Osos), historically known as the First Baptist Church and built in 1907.
The church is on the City's Master List of Historic Resources and its architectural style
categorized as English Craftsman/Carpenter Gothic. Other nearby development includes a
mixture of residential projects, parking lots, and office buildings. The San Luis Medical
complex and the Marsh Street parking structure are located to the north. All of the residential
properties in the same block to the south of the site are considered to be contributing historic
properties.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The project included requests for architectural review of development plans, environmental
review, a General Plan Amendment with Rezoning, and a vesting tentative tract map to create
both residential and office condominiums.
A General Plan amendment and rezoning are proposed so that the underlying.Office and R-3
land use and zoning categories are in alignment with the proposed office and residential building
components in the project. Currently the property at 1321 Osos is designated and zoned Office
while the other two properties are zoned and designated Medium-High Density Residential, R-3-
H. The residential component of the project is located on the eastern portion of the site nearer to
Osos Street, while the office component is oriented to the east and Pacific Street. Therefore, the
proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning will be redistributing the existing land use and
zoning categories on the site rather than changing them to establish a different zoning or land use
(see Figure 1 —existing and proposed land use and zoning).
Figure 1
Q
O OROS, COs
2 2
O O
/ 3- �,/" 3-
-N- -N-
Q�5 R- . Q�5 R-
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
Imo! CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 2 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
?N1 -(P5
- Attachment 4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources X Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation&Traffic
X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
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
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
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)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
PHI- �
Attachment 4
t.. 1
DETERAHNATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been X
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IlVIPACT 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 RAPACT 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.
Signature Date
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director,Development Review John Mandeville,Community Development Director
Printed Name for
CRY OF SAN Luis Omspo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
PN1- Lip7
Attachment 4
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially.Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project
+� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potent,..ay Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 102-07 Issues MitgImpact
Mitigation
htcorpomted
Page No. 6
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 3,4 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 5 X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 5 X
adversel affect nighttime_views in_the area? __
Evaluation
a) The project site is not currently located in the vicinity of any scenic vistas or roadways. Since the project is designed to
comply with the maximum height limitation of 35 feet,the impact to views in the area will be less than significant.
b)The project site is located adjacent to a historic structure at 1301 Osos Street. Project plans were conceptually reviewed by
the Architectural Review Commission(ARC)on April 21, 2008, and the Cultural Heritage Committee(CHC) reviewed plans
on May 27, 2008. The Victorian design theme of the project has specifically taken cues from the adjacent historic church in
terms of its steeply-pitched roof forms to visually tie in with both that structure and the context of its historic district setting.
With the building height limited to 35 feet,the project does not unduly compete with the views of the historic church from the
corner of Osos and Pacific Street. Both the ARC and CHC found with their reviews of project plans that the proposed design
is consistent with City goals of looking to the best nearby examples of architecture and preserving the historic character,scale
and ambiance of the surrounding area.
c)The existing visual character or quality of the site will change from parking lots to buildings similar in character and scale
to surrounding development. The project will be required to comply with City codes and standards some of which impact
aesthetics and ultimately the project will require the review and approval of the ARC to ensure consistency with the City's
Community Design Guidelines(CDG).
d)The project will have limited impacts related to lighting and glare,especially since most of the project parking is proposed
to be underground. Compliance with provisions for lighting contained in the CDG and review by ARC will adequately
mitigate potential impacts. The City's guidelines for lighting prohibit light in excess of one foot-candle from spilling over the
property line. Glare resulting from proposed lighting would be reduced by implementation of standard requirements to shield
lights and recess light sources within fixtures. The new light source subject to mitigation will not adversely affect day.or
nighttime views in the urbanized area. Impacts from new sources of light or glare will be less than significant with the
lighting standards contained in the San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines. Building and parking lot lighting for the
project would also be reviewed and approved by the ARC.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps 3.7 X
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
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, X
to_non-agriculturaluse?
Evaluation
a), b) The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency classify the project site as Urban
or Built-Up Land, which is defined as"land occupied'by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
PN1-�°
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potetittauy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 102-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 7
approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel." The project will not cause the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to any non-agricultural use or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use.
c) Land.in the vicinity of the project site is already developed for urban uses.
Conclusion: No impact.
The project will have no impact on agricultural resources..
3. AIR QUAILITY. Would the proje&
a) Violate any air quality standard or co-n-thb-u-te substantially to an 8,9 X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 8,9 X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 8,9
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)? _
Evaluation
a) b) c) e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PMIo(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter)and Ozone air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors
be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo
County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is.a
comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources,as well
as from motor vehicle use. Conservation & Open Space Element Program 2.3.2 states that the City will help the APCD
implement the Clean Air Plan.
Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant
source of PMIo. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures designed to
reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. The project meets many of the goals stated in the CAP
because it will provide infill development within the City's Urban Reserve Line and the project site is located in the City's
urban center with convenient access to commercial services and transit routes, reducing the need for occupants of the project
to rely on vehicles for all of their transportation needs.
According to the APCD's"CEQA Air Quality Handbook," land uses that cause the generation of 10 or more pounds per day
(PPD) of reactive organic gases, oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter (PM 10), or 50 lbs/per day or
more of carbon monoxide (CO) have the potential to affect air quality significantly. Table 1-1 of this document states that it
takes approximately 50 apartment units or 20, 000 square feet of office space to generate over 10 pounds of these pollutants
Therefore, the proposed project with 11 apartments and about 8,800 square feet of office space would be of a size that is
below APCD's air quality significance thresholds. Therefore, the project and resulting development will not generate
significant operational air quality impacts.
In evaluating construction related impacts, the SLO APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states the threshold level of grading
activity to generate required mitigation measures is 9,100 cubic yards/day for reactive organic gases(ROG) and 2,000 cubic
yards/day for oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Projects involving grading of an area greater than 4.0 acres require PMIO
mitigations.The proposed project grading scope is well below these thresholds since the project site is about a 0.5 acre in size
and grading will not exceed 2,000 cubic yards/day.. The APCD does not require consultation for potential asbestos dust
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
PHI, ��
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Poteritratly Potentially - Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant 'linpact
ER# 102 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 8
related impacts unless the project site is over 1.0 acre in size. Despite the relatively small size of the project in terms of
construction impact thresholds, there still will be short-term impacts from increased levels of fugitive dust associated with
construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy duty construction equipment.
Therefore,mitigation is included to help mitigate these short-term construction impacts.
Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.
Mitigation Measure No. 1:
1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities and vehicle
emissions from heavy duty equipment have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards
for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated:
a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less;
b. 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;
c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing
the property line;
d. 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;
e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road;and
f. 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.
d)No objectionable odors will emanate from the project.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional X
plans, policies; or regulations; or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? .
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat.or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califomia Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources; such as a tree preservation policy or X
ordinance(e.g. Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites'?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved X
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
0 Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited .to, marshes, venial pools; etc.) X
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption; or
other means?
IIIIIIIIIIiU CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
PHI -7f
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potennady Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact ---
ER# 102 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No.9
Evaluation
a), b), d), e), 0 - The project site is currently developed as parking lots and is located in an urban setting on the edge of the
City's downtown core. Given this setting and the fact that the site is not adjacent to or does not contain a creek or other open,
natural features, project development as proposed will not result in adverse effects on species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species, riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities, and protected wetlands. There are
no local ordinances or habitat conservation plans that affect the property or identify the site as potential habitat for any
protected species of plant or animal.
c) Sheet No. I of the vesting tentative map shows existing site conditions, including the locations of all existing trees on the
site and nearby trees on adjacent properties. A legend is provided which calls out the sizes and species of all theses trees.
Generally the applicant's proposal will retain the street tress on Osos Street and trees on adjacent properties, but remove the
rest of the on-site trees. Given the scale of proposed development, there is not suitable space for extensive tree planting
elsewhere to fully compensate for these tree removals. Therefore it is especially important that those trees identified for
preservation are properly protected.
Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.
Mitigation Measure No.2:
Trees identified by the Architectural Review Commission to be preserved shall be clearly marked on grading and construction
plans. The applicant shall submit a tree preservation agreement for review and approval by the Community Development
Director.The agreement shall be secured by a bond in the amount determined by the City Arborist.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
- -— --
a) Cause•a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 3,4, X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064,5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 10 X
archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological.resource 10 X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of I I X
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a) The applicant has selected a Victorian theme for the building architecture complementing the roof forms of the adjacent
Master List church building and coordinating with other historic structures in the near vicinity. With the reduction in the
building height to not exceed 35 feet, the project does not unduly compete with the views of the historic church from the
comer of Osos and Pacific Street and maintains its visual prominence on the block. The proposed design is consistent with
City goals of looking to the best nearby examples of architecture and preserving the historic character,scale and ambiance of
the surrounding area.
b) Consistent with the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, a Phase 1 archaeological survey was not
required for this project because the site size is less than an acre and is not immediately adjacent to a creek corridor.
However, there will be significant excavation at the site to construct underground parking that could result in the uncovering
of unknown artifacts. Therefore, the project does have the potential to impact cultural resources, but the following standard
mitigation measure will properly address the potential impact of archaeological resources being uncovered during
construction.
Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
PNZ -T
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentimry Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 102 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 10
Mitigation Measure No.3:
If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then
construction activities which may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and appropriate
protective measures are approved by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall be
notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist. If pre-
historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the
archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws.
c),d)The project site is located in an area that does not contain any unique geological feature and possesses no known unique
paleontological resources,and it is not anticipated that any human remains will be disturbed during construction.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 2 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 2 X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the 2 X
State?
Evaluation
a) b) The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in
an inefficient manner. Future site development must comply with the policies contained in the Energy chapter of the General
Plan's Conservation and Open Space Element(COSE). The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement
of the California Energy Code, which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential
construction. Future development of this site must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals
through Architectural Review, where detailed plans are reviewed to ensure consistency with City energy conservation goals,
policies, and regulations. Project designers are encouraged to make maximum use of passive means of reducing conventional
energy demand,as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain comfort.
c) There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the
State.
Conclusion:No impact.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X
effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the 13
most.recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map X
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
II. Strong seismic ground shaking?. . 12,13 X
III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? 12,13 X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 12 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 13
would become unstable as a result of the project;and potentially X
ON& CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
[K1
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 102-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 11
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidance,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the California 14
Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or X
property'?
Evaluation
a) San Luis Obispo County, including San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which
extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and
fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending
ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County,the special Studies
Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near
Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos
Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this
fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are
considered"active". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the
Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone,located approximately 12
miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of"High Seismic
Hazards,"specifically Seismic Zone 4,which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected
to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design
criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact, the Uniform
Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake.
b) Future site development must comply with the standards and requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code(UBC)
that address soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Compliance with the UBC will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
c), d) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction,which is true
for most of the City,. Recommendations included in a soils report are sufficient to mitigate potential hazards from building in
these areas. A soils engineering report will be required to be submitted as part of the building permit process to ensure the
integrity of the structures and infrastructure.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
Development will be required to comply with the Uniform Building Codes and City Codes which require new structures to be
built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake, and proper documentation of soil characteristics for
designing structurally sound buildings. The Building Division of the Community Development Department routinely reviews
project for their compliance with the recommendations of the soils engineering report for the site. No further mitigation is
required.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:
a) Create a significant haia d to the public or the environment
though the routine use, transport or, disposal of hazardous 12 X
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X
involving the release of hazardous materialsinto the
environment?
Ubr CITY OF SAN LUIS Oaispo 1 I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
PIP 1 -7 y,
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentwiy' Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 102 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 12
C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures,to existing sources of hazardous .
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 30,31 X
65962.5 and,.as a result, it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety 18 X
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with; the
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury,
or death,involving wildland fires, irtcluding where wildlands are X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a) The project does not involve the routine use,transport,or disposal of hazardous materials.
b),d)The project will not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment..
c) The project is not located within V4 mile of an existing or proposed school.. The project will not involve hazardous
emissions or include handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances or waste.
Conclusion:No Impact.
e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code§ 65962.5. A
Site Assessment was conducted by SECOR International, Inc. due to the discovery of hydrocarbon contamination in several
soil borings as part of pre-development assessment of the site. During the site assessment very minor levels of hydrocarbons
were detected on site,but higher levels were encountered up-gradient of the site. The conclusion was that the contamination
was related to a high pressure pipeline in Pismo Street. Conoco Phillips will be working with Regional Water Quality Control
Board to monitor any impacts to area groundwater. The City's Hazardous Material Coordinator has submitted a letter to the
project file confirming that no further clean-up work or testing is required at this time at the project site. However, with
planned excavation during project construction additional hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered.
Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.
Mitigation Measure No.4:
If further contamination is encountered with site grading activities, then work shall cease until the City's Hazardous Material
Coordinator has been notified and had the opportunity to consult with other affected parties and appropriate governmental
agencies to determine any necessary next steps.
f) The project site is approximately two miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport,outside the Airport Land Use
Plan Area.
g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
`1111 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
_PH 1 -`�
- Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources PotenuaIly Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#102-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 13
h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires.
Conclusion:No Impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local X
groundwater table level (eg. The production rate of preexisting
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or 19,29 X
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or 19.29 X
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding 29 X
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 20,29
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map X
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows? 20
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into 19 X
ground or surface waters?
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, 19 X
temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity?
Evaluation
a), b) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Site redevelopment will be
served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources.
c) d) h) i) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's
Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within
the City's watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-development
site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off. This can be achieved through a combination of detention and use of
pervious surfaces to increase water absorption on-site. Compliance with the requirements of the plan are sufficient to mitigate
any potentially significant impacts of the project in the area of water quality and hydrology. Consistent with the Waterways
Management Plan, the applicant submitted a preliminary drainage report prepared by Wallace Group that has been reviewed
by the City's Public Works Department and generally confirms that the proposed development can comply with City
requirements. A final drainage plan will be submitted along with plans for a building permit will be evaluated by the Public
Works Department for consistency with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan.
e) f), g) This property is located within an AO (2' depth) flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM) for
the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, any new structures or the substantial remodel of existing structures shall comply with
all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements, the City's Floodplain Management Regulations.
Compliance with standards contained in these regulations is considered adequate to mitigate potentially significant impacts to
people and property from flooding hazards.
��� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
I N1-II
Attachment q
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potent,any Potentially Less Than - No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#102 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 14
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of! 21,22
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the X
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community'.? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservation plans?
Evaluation
a) The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element in that the proposed rezoning and general plan
amendment involve adjusting the boundary line between existing designations on the site; rather than changing them to
another category that does not currently exist at the site. Because the land use and zoning categories are simply being
redistributed, the proposed changes to the City's maps accommodate the planned redevelopment of the site with uses and
improvements that will be compatible with other properties in the same block that are either zoned Office or R-3, Medium-
High Density Residential. The proposed rezone would not conflict with land use plans or policies adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect
b) The project will not physically divide an established community since the project is a logical and orderly extension of the
planned land uses and development that are already established within the surrounding area.
c) The project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans.
Conclusion; No impact.
The project has been designed to be consistent with policies included in the General Plan and property development standards
of the Zoning Regulations,and will not create any adverse impacts to land use and planning.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of "unacceptable" noise
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 23 X
Element, or general noise .levels in excess of standards .
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A .substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels'?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to 18 X
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation
a) The project will not generate unacceptable noise levels or expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established
in the Noise Ordinance. The project site is located outside of any noise contour in the City's Noise Element that would
require mitigation.
b)Construction of the proposed project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the
City's Noise Ordinance,which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. The project
would be required to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance,which includes limitations on the days and hours of
IIIIIIIIIIIIQ11 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potennauy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#102 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 15
construction.
c)The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundbome noise levels or vibration.
d) The project site is approximately two miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, outside the Airport Land Use
Plan Area.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
---- —- ----
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or I X
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other,
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of. replacement housing X
elsewhere?
Evaluation
a) The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth into the
area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is bordered by urban
development and the redevelopment of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of development is
encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation and parks.
b) The project site is presently undeveloped land with no residential dwellings. As a result, housing and people will not be
displaced by the project.
Conclusion
The population growth created by the project is considered to be less than significant since the development is consistent with
General Plan policies and Zoning Regulation standards, and development of the project site has been accounted for in the
population estimates contained in the City's General Plan.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 24 X
b) Police protection? X
C) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
f) Other public facilities? X
Evaluation
a) b) d) e) f) No potential impacts have been identified to any public services because of the scale of the project and its
location within a developed portion of the City. Future development must comply with all applicable City Codes and State
regulations.
c) The school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of issuance of building permits to offset the
costs to finance school site acquisition and school construction, and are deemed by State law to be adequate mitigation for all
school facility requirements.Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are considered to be mitigated
by the district's collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
PH 1 -'7''
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poten.u..ny Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#102-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 16
Conclusion; Less than significant impact.
It is expected that the project will have a less than significant impact on the City's ability to provide public services. Full
review of the project is still required by the appropriate City Departments.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical 25,26 X
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated'?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse X
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a) New residential developments incrementally add to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. Eleven
residential units are proposed with the project. Park-in-lieu fees would be required to help finance additional park space or
equipment in the vicinity in accordance with the subdivision regulations. These fees are sufficient to offset the effect of the
additional demand for recreational facilities. The Planning Commission and City Council with their review of the proposed
condominium subdivision, and the ARC with their review of development plans, will evaluate that adequate private, semi-
private,and public open space areas are provided within the project.
b)The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Conclusion: Less Than Si icant Impact.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation_ to the I, 28 X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level.of service 1,28 X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design'features (e:g. sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections) or 'incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 17 X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 1 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, 18
or a change in air trafficpatterns?
Evaluation
a), b) c) f) The proposed project is expected to generate a total of 166 trips as its Average Daily Traffic (ADT)based on the
Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE)trip generation rates for the proposed uses. Because of the relatively minor ADT
that the project would generate, The City's Public Works Department (Transportation Division) did not require a full traffic
analysis,but did direct the applicant to prepare a focused traffic analysis looking at two key issues. The two issues were:
1)What is the project's potential impact on the operation of the Bill Roalman Bicycle Boulevard'?
2)Will the project impact the operation of the intersection at Pacific Street and Morro Street to necessitate the
installation of a multi-way stop control?
In response to the City's directive, an analysis dated 1-28-08 focusing on the two issues described above was prepared by
Orosz Engineering Group, Inc. The analysis is hereby incorporated into this initial study by reference and attached as
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
PN1 "I'1
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 102-07 Issues Mitigation
ess Impact
Incorporated
Page No. 17
Attachment 2.
Bill Roalman Bicycle Boulevard
In terms of impacts to the operation of the bicycle boulevard, the analysis indicates that the volume of project traffic onto
Morro Street is not significant,but that adequate sight distance needs to be accommodated.
Conclusion:Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.
Mitigation Measure No. 5:
To provide for adequate sight distance for the Morro Street access, on-street parking shalt be eliminated within 25 feet of the
project driveway to the north and within 50 feet to the south.
Intersection of Morro and Pacific Streets
In term of stop control warrants at the intersection of Morro and Pacific Streets, the analysis indicates that the additional
traffic generated from the project did not meet thresholds to require installation of a multi-way stop control. However,since
residents are still becoming accustomed to the flow of traffic along the bicycle boulevard, additional augmentation of signage
was recommended.
Conclusion:Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.
Mitigation Measure No. 6:
The applicant shall install additional "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" signs on the back of the existing stop signs at the
intersection of Morro and Pacific Streets to reinforce the message of the two-way stop controls.
d) The City will require that the project provide development in accordance with adopted city standards thereby assuring
predetermined standards necessary to limit safety hazards and provide adequate emergency access. The Fire Marshal has
reviewed the project and determined that the site can be adequately accessed by emergency vehicles in its present design.
e)Parking for the project is provided based on the provisions of the zoning regulations. The office component of the project
at 8,840 square feet requires a total of 30 parking spaces (8,800/300 = 30). The 10 two-bedroom units require two spaces
each, and the studio requires one space, for a total of 21 parking spaces. The 11 residential units require two guest spaces
(one per 5 units). Therefore, the total project parking requirement is 53 spaces. A total of 54 parking spaces are shown on
plans with 44 spaces in the underground parking garage and 10 spaces in the ground level parking court.
Out of the 44 underground spaces, 24 are proposed in tandem. The Zoning Regulations provide the following limited
guidance on the use of tandem spaces in projects by noting that: "For residential uses, when parking spaces are identified for
the exclusive use of occupants of a designated dwelling,required spaces may be arranged in tandem(that is,one space behind
the other) subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." In this case, the tandem spaces could be
approved by the ARC with their review of the project design. The ARC with their conceptual review of the project on April
21, 2008 endorsed the applicant's parking proposal including the tandem spaces. Despite concerns raised by staff with the
functionality, efficiency and potential undesirable precedent related to the number and layout of the tandem parking spaces,
the ARC found that the tandem spaces are appropriate at this site on the edge of downtown to accommodate more intensive
infill types of projects.
f) Payment of City adopted Traffic and Development Impact Fees will contribute to the construction intersection
improvements at a later time to be determined by the City.
g)The project is not within the County's Airport Land Use Plan area for San Luis Obispo Airport.
111111111111M/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STuDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
'PH-1 -• gc
tmttady Potentially Less ThAttachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Poan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 102-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 18
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 16 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board'?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water. 16
treatment, wastewater treatment, or storm drainage facilities; the X
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 16 X
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 16 X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 27 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs'?
f) Comply with .federal; state, and local statutes and regglations 27 X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
a), b) The project will allow for development of the site with slightly higher water demands. However, the incremental
change is not considered to be significant. This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer and no
resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. Future site development is subject to water impact fees which were
adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply, treatment and
distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it.
c) The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development and land use
changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section 11.89.030 of the regulations states
that a water allocation shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure or facility not
previously connected; change the use of land or buildings, whether or not a construction permit is also required; obtain a
construction permit." Compliance with the City standards and State requirements will assure that impacts to water supplies
are less than significant.
d) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project site.
The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-
site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Impact fees
are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are
set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project.
e) f) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air
quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and
county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50%(from 1989 levels)by 2000. To help reduce the waste
stream generated by this project,consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element,recycling facilities must
be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be
submitted with the building permit application. The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to
reduce the waste stream generated by the project,consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
Conclusion: No significant impacts have been identified relative to utilities or service systems.
IIIIIIIIIIINA CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
TN1 `&.
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenttauy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 102-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 19
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 26
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory9
Impacts are less than significant since the project site is already develo ed,is in an urbanized area.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" X
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
The impacts identified in this initial study are specific to this project and would not be categorized as cumulatively significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X
indirectly'?
With the incorporation of mitigation measure s,the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans.
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063(c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used.-Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis:
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,Aril 2006
2. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,April 2006
3. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database
4. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,
5. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines,May 2003
6. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996
7. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FNIW/
8. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001
9. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003
10. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
11. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma
12. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000
13. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990
14. 2007 California Building Code
15. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,April 2006
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
PHS
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenttatty Potentially I.essThan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 102-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 20
16. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,April 2006
17. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
18. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan,May 2005
19. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
20. Flood Insurance Rate Ma Community Panel 0603100005 C dated July 7, 1981
21. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,Aril 2006
22. SLO Zoning Ordinance,February 2007
23. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996
24. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
25. CityofSan Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element,April 2001.
26. City of San Luis Obispo Subdivision Regulations,August 2007.
27. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element,June 1994,on file in the Utilities Department
28. Traffic engineering Analysis by Orosz Engineering Group,Inc.,January 28,2008.
29. Pacific Courtyard Mixed Use Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by Wallace Group dated June 11,2007.
30. Correspondences from Kerry Boyle,City's Hazardous Materials Coordinator.
31. Preliminary Assessment Results and Work Plan for Further Assessment for proposed Pacific Courtyards Project
bySECOR International,Inc. dated January 30,2008.
REQumED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure No. 1:
1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities and vehicle
emissions from heavy duty equipment have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards
for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated:
a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less;
b. 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;
c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing
the property line;
d. 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;
e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road;and
f. 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:
These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and building plans. The applicant shall present evidence of a plan for
complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the City. The applicant shall
provide the City with the name and telephone number of the person responsible for ensuring compliance with these
requirements. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
`� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
PN1 -B
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiatty Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant hnpact
ER# 102-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No.21
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure No.-2:
2. Trees identified by the Architectural Review Commission to be preserved shall be clearly marked on grading and
construction plans. The applicant shall submit a tree preservation agreement for review and approval by the
Community Development Director. The agreement shall be secured by a bond in the amount determined by the City
Arborist.
Monitoring Program:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit the required tree preservation agreement and actively
coordinate with the City Arborist during construction.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure No.3:
3. If significant archaeological materials are discovered during grading and construction, all construction activities that
may damage those materials shall immediately cease. The project sponsor shall then propose specific mitigation
based on a qualified archaeologist's recommendations. The Director shall approve, approve with changes, or reject
the mitigation proposal(if found incomplete, infeasible, or unlikely to reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level).
If the proposal is approved,the project sponsor shall implement mitigation,to the satisfaction of the Director. A copy
of the archaeologist's recommendations and the Director's decision will be forwarded to the Cultural Heritage
Committee. If grading results in the uncovering of artifacts,then standard mitigation would be followed..
Monitoring Program:
Requirements for cultural resource mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation Measure No.4:
4. If further contamination is encountered with site grading activities, then work shall cease until the City's Hazardous
Material Coordinator has been notified and had the opportunity to consult with other affected parties and appropriate
governmental agencies to determine any necessary next steps.
Monitoring Program:
The City's Hazardous Material Coordinator shall be the lead in reviewing any subsequent studies necessary and assuring that
any related site clean-up has taken place.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Mitigation Measures No 5&6:
5. To provide for adequate sight distance for the Morro Street access,on-street parking shall be eliminated within 25 feet
of the project driveway to the north and within 50 feet to the south.
6. The applicant shall install additional"Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" signs on the back of the existing stop signs at the
intersection of Morro and Pacific Streets to reinforce the message of the two-way stop controls.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
PHI -
Attarhrient
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiauy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 102-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Pae No. 22
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with the required mitigation measures shall be reflected on the plans for project grading and construction and
shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to City issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
project.
The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Section
15070(b)(1)of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. The Architectural Review Commission through final
review of project plans, and City staff will review detailed project plans through building and grading plan checks, and
occupancy release inspections, to accomplish compliance with these mitigation measures as discussed in detail in the
monitoring programs above.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Traffic engineering Analysis by Orosz Engineering Group,Inc.,January 28,2008 without attachments
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007
PHI - 95
' File No. 1 02=07
VICINITY MAP
1321 & 1327 Osos
Attachment 4
Orosz Engineering Group,Inc.
1627 Calzada Avenue
Santa Ynez, California 93460 OEG Ref 07-120507
Phone/FAX 805-688-7814
email oeg@quixnet.net .
January 28, 2008
Mission Medical Partners, LLC
c/o C.M. Florence,AICP,.Agent
Oasis Associates, Inc
3427 Miguelito Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Traffic.Engineering Analysis-Pacific Courtyards Mixed Use Project—San Luis Obispo, California
Dear Ms. Florence:
Orosz Engineering Group, Inc. (OEG) has prepared this letter report to address the traffic engineering
issues raised by the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the proposed project. (See email from P. Ricci to H.
Marshall, December 11,2007,T. Bochum to C. Florence and P. Mandeville to S.Orosz) We have
reviewed the issues and the scope of this analysis with the Public Works Department staff and
conducted a site reconnaissance with representatives from the City Traffic Department and OEG.
The key issues are summarized below:
1. What is the project's potential impact on the operation of the Bill Roalman Bicycle
Boulevard? and,
2. Will the project impact the operation of the intersection at Pacific Street and Morro Street
to necessitate the installation of a multi-way STOP control?
Project Description
Currently,the project proposes to construct approximately 9,260 SF of office space and 11 residential
units. The project is located southerly of Pacific Street between Osos Street and Morro Street. Access
to the project site.is proposed at two locations:1)via an at-grade lot of approximately 10 spaces with
street access to Osos Street; and 2) subterranean parking with street access to Morro Street.
The project is expected to generate a total of 166 ADT with 20 PM Peak Hour trips as described in Table
1. The trip generation rates used to document the project traffic was based on the published ITE Trip
Generation Rates for the project use's. Due to the small number of project trips,a full traffic analysis
was not required by the City.
Table 1
Project Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak
Land Use Size ADT AM Peak Hour Hour PM Peak Hour Hour
Hour In Out Total Hour In Out Total
Office 9,260 SF 102 12 2 14 2 12 14
Condominium 11 Units 64 1 4 5 4 2 6
Total V6 13 6 19 6 14 20
Attachment 4
Ms.C. M. Florence
january 28,2008
Page 2
Given the parking layout,the majority of the project peak hour traffic will utilize the Morro Street access
and be oriented to the north on Morro Street toward Pacific Street.
Bill Roalman Bicycle-Boulevard
The Bill Roalman Bicycle Boulevard ("Boulevard") is a public roadway that gives priority to bicycle traffic
over motor vehicle.traffic. The Boulevard begins at the intersection of Pacific and Morro Street and
travels south along Morro Street to Santa Barbara Avenue. As the project is located at the beginning of
the Boulevard,generates an insignificant amount of hourly traffic(see Table 1)and is a mixed use
project,the project.is not expected to significantly impact the operation of the Bicycle Boulevard. Being
located on the Boulevard,office tenants and residents will be encouraged to utilize the bicycle as their
form of transportation.
As the project is introducing a new driveway along Morro Street that will service the majority of the
project traffic,adequate sight distance should be provided for both bicyclists and motorists alike. To
provide for adequate-sight distance for the Morro Street access,on-street parking 25 feet to the north
of the project driveway should be eliminated and 50 feet to the south. Given the slower speed of
bicycle traffic and vehicle speeds in this area (22 MPH documented by City data for Morro Street),the
removal of parking would provide approximately 100 feet of sight distance. With the slower speed
traffic and other on-street parking,the sight distance should be adequate.
Pacific Street and Morro Street Multi-Way Stop Control Warrants
The intersection at Pacific Street and Morro Street is configured with one approach lane in each
direction,with STOP controls for northbound and southbound Morro Street traffic only. Traffic along
Pacific Street does not stop. In 2005,the City made some modifications to the configuration of the
intersection and signage to address a history of higher than average crashes and right of way control
confusion. At the same time,the City evaluated the warrants for the installation of a multi-way STOP
control at this intersection and found that the warrants were not met. Since that time,the number of
crashes has dropped significantly.
For this project,the City requested that the multi-way STOP control warrants be updated with 2007 data
and with the additional traffic from the proposed project. The City of San Luis Obispo provided traffic
growth factors to account for 2007 traffic volume conditions to match the collision data provided for
2007 for the update of the Multi-Way STOP control warrant analysis for this project. The traffic volume
growth rate for the Downtown was found to be 3%per year. The multi-way STOP warrants were
updated for 2007 traffic conditions without the project. The results of the 2007 warrant analysis were
that the multi-way STOP control warrants were still not met.
With the addition of the project traffic,the multi-way STOP control warrants were recalculated. The
results of the warrant analysis are that the multi-way STOP is not warranted with the 2007 traffic
volume conditions and with the additional traffic from the proposed project. The warrant worksheets
are appended to this letter report.
PHI- $1
Ms.C.M.Florence Attachment 4
January 28, 2008
Page 3
Recommendations
To address the potential project impacts described in this analysis,the following measures are
recommended.
1. To provide for adequate sight distance for the Morro Street access, on-street parking within 25
feet of the project driveway should be eliminated to the north and 50 feet to the south.
2. To address some of the existing confusion observed in the field at the intersection of Morro and
Pacific Streets,the installation of additional"Cross Traffic Does Not Stop"signs on the back of
the existing STOP signs should reinforce the message of the two-way STOP controls.
Should you have any questions,feel free to contact us.
® @1 A.
Sincerely, h,��`0.�@p90���
®B No. 1209
StNenkOr :E. gam,
Orosz Engineering Group, Inc. t
Enclosures
Scope of Work E-mails
2005-2007 Traffic Volumes
2005 and 2007 Intersection Collision Diagrams for the intersection of Pacific and Morro Streets
2005,2007 and 2007 Plus Proposed Project Multi-Way STOP Control Warrant Worksheets
?K1 -
Attachment 4
City planners vote tonight on tandem parking
Oakland Tribune, Jun 9, 2005 by Matt O'Brien, STAFF WRITER
HAYWARD-- Couples moving into the city's future housing developments could face an added hassle when
they leave for work every morning:
Whose car leaves the garage first?
A developer-initiated proposal to allow the construction of tandem,or back-to-back,parking spaces in
multifamily housing developments heads before the Planning Commission at a meeting tonight.
"As we're looking at higher-density developments,there seems to be a call for tandem parking with these
projects," said Richard Patenaude, Hayward's principal planner. "We do see it as a way to increase densities on
multifamily projects."
If the proposal is approved by the commission tonight,it would allow developers to tighten multifamily housing
communities by creating narrow lots or garages with parking spaces back to back rather than side by side.
The present city ordinance prohibits multi-family homes— with the sole exception of multifamily homes in the
city's downtown area--from having tandem parking spaces.
The ordinance does not affect single-family neighborhoods,where homeowners can have either side-by-side or
back-to-back spaces..
Patenaude said the city probably enacted the tandem parking prohibition for multifamily homes because tandem
garages can be inconvenient in neighborhoods where there is no street parking or roomy driveways to help
residents maneuver out of garages.
Families with tandem parking garages have to jockey their cars back and forth "depending on who comes home
first,"he said.
Some communities, such as Redwood City,do not allow tandem spaces under any circumstance,according to a
Hayward study of neighboring ordinances.Livermore and Milpitas both allow tandem parking in high-density
developments,while Alameda allows it for any residential unit.
Patenaude said Hayward planners now believe it's a good idea to make tandem parking available for future
multifamily developments.
City planners and a group of developers with pending multifamily projects are asking the Planning Commission
to vote for the amendment at a meeting that begins at 7 tonight at the City Hall Council Chambers, 777 B St.
The proposal was fust introduced by Southern Califomia-based developer The Olson Company,which is
proposing to build a 56-unit condominium unit in what is now an industrial storage yard between Huntwood
Avenue, Harder Road and a Union Pacific railroad line.
That development proposal is also on the agenda of tonight's meeting.
Matt O'Brien can be reached at mattobrien@dailyreviewonline.com or (510)293-2473
c2005 ANG Newspapers. Cannot be used or repurposed without prior written permission.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Leaming Company.All rights Reserved.
PHI -90
Attachment 4
Cindy
From: Carol [cmf@oasisassoc.com]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:35 PM
To: Cindy Kneeland
Subject: FW."Osos and Pacific Streets
From: Brian Starr(mailto:sdgbrian@sdgarchitects.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:56 AM
To: Hamish Marshall
Cc: Carol Architects
Subject: Osos and Pacific Streets
Hamish,
As your neighbors at 1301 Osos Street, (the Adventist church), we have reviewed the plans for your proposed
development next door and want to convey that we believe it to be a sensitively design project that is in keeping with
the context of our church and the neighborhood that surrounds it. We appreciate Carol Florence's communication of
the project details and her recent response to our questions. I am sure whatever coordination is required for changes to
the church's utilities and/or drainage can be readily resolved.
Brian Starr
tGLllfTgf:'T%,3uC
641 Higuera Street#303
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
805-541-3848
b,han@sdgamhitects.com
N",scigarchitects com
4/21/2008 PH1 _1:114
Page 1 of 1
Attachment 4
Ricci, Pam
From: Steven Saldo [ssaldo@saldolaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 08,2008 2:32 PM
To: Ricci, Pam
Cc: Carol
Subject: Pacific Courtyards
Dear Ms. Ricci,
My family owns 958/960 Pismo St in SLO. I have had an opportunity to review the plans for the Pacific
Courtyards and highly recommend that the city approve the project. It's beautifully designed and would be a great
addition to the neighborhood. Although our property is adjacent, I have no concerns that we will be negatively
impacted. Again,we strongly support this project and if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,.
Steven L. Saldo
Law Offices of Steven L. Saldo
1042 Palm Street, 2nd Floor
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Telephone: (805)547 0700
Fax: (805) 547 0754
ssaldo@saldolaw.com
Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail and any
attachments may be legally privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying
of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments
immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment for
any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the contents to any other person.
crszi�nnst HI — 12
Attachment
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2008 Series) -
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A LAND USE ELEMENT MAP AMENDMENT TO
RECONFIGURE THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE OFFICE AND
MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS ON THE
SITE,VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2928 TO CREATE 6
COMMERCIAL AND 11 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS, AND
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 1321 & 1327 OSOS STREET; GP/R/TR/ER 102-07
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 9, 2008, and
recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August
197 2008, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/TR/ER 102-07, Mission
Medical Partners, LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; 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.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project entitlements in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the independent
judgment of the Council. The Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration
incorporating all of the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A into the project (Mitigation
Monitoring Program).;
SECTION 2. General Plan Amendment Approval with Findings & Conditions. The
City Council finds and approves the General Plan Amendment included as part of City
Application No. GP/R 102-07, which reconfigures the boundary between the Office and
Medium-High Density Residential designations on the site for the properties located at 1321 &
1327 Osos Street as shown on the attached Exhibit B, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
p�1 - R
Attachment 5
Resolution No.XXXX(2008 Series) - ...
Page 2
Findings:
1. The proposed modification is a minor amendment to the Land Use Element Map because
it is a boundary change only which retains the existing Office and Medium-High Density
Residential designations for the site with the same relative proportions of the overall site
area intact.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of those living and working in the vicinity since the proposed change to the
City's map accommodates the planned redevelopment of the site with uses and
improvements that will be compatible with other properties in the same block that are
either designated Office or Medium-High Density Residential.
3. The Community Development Director recommended adoption of a Negative
Declaration with Mitigation Measures on June 16, 2008. The Planning Commission
finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the
potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Conditions:
1. The Land Use Element Map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit B.
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.
SECTION 3. Vesting Tract Mat, No. 2928 Approval with Findings and Conditions. The
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2928 included as part of City Application No. TR 102-07,
which allows the creation of 6 commercial and 11 residential condominiums, is hereby approved,
based on the following findings, including an exception to the total open space requirements for
the R-3 zone contained in the City's Subdivision Regulations, and subject to the following
conditions and noting certain code requirements:
Findings
1. The design of the vesting tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because
the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will incrementally add to the
City's residential housing inventory, result in condominium units that meet density
standards, and will be consistent with the density and development limits established by
the Office (0) and Medium-High Density Residential with the Historical Perseveration
overlay zoning district(R-3-H).
2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the Office
and R-3-H zones since the site is generally flat, surrounded by a mixture of residential
projects, parking lots, and office buildings.
Po1-�
Attachment 5
Resolution No.XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 3
3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use
of property within) the proposed subdivision.
4. The design of the vesting tentative tract map and proposed improvements are not likely to
cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any
creeks or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish and wildlife.
5. Tandem parking within the project is supported by the Planning Commission for the
following reasons:
a.. The City of San Luis Obispo encourages creative use of infill development to
provide opportunities for much needed workforce housing near the downtown to
support adopted Housing Element policies and goals.
b. The site is unusually configured and, with building height limitations, poses
difficult building design constraints that would potentially result in fewer
residential units if conventional side-by-side parking were insisted upon.
c. The project site is located adjacent to the downtown core that will provide
pedestrian access to many daily needs of the residents. Therefore, residents may
be less dependent on use of their automobiles such that the inconvenience
associated with tandem parking may be minimized.
6. The property to be divided has an irregular shape and a spilt zoning between Medium-
High Density Residential (R-3-H) and Office (0) that makes it impractical or undesirable,
in this particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in
the Subdivision Regulations regarding the provision of total open space for a residential
condominium.
7. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the
sole reason for granting the exception to total open space standards, because approval of
the project as designed results in a mixed-use development that meets standards for both
private and common open space requirements, respects the context of its historic setting
and provides housing opportunities, including a deed-restricted affordable unit, in close
proximity to the downtown core and other public services and amenities
8. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity since the project will meet requirements for
both private and common open space areas.
9. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent
with limitations upon other properties sin the vicinity with the same zoning since the
project includes a deed-restricted affordable unit for very-low income households. Per
Section 17.90.050 B.7. of the City's Zoning Regulations (Incentives for Affordable
Housing Projects), projects that contain affordable housing may request relaxation of
�N1 -��
I
Attachment
Resolution No. XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 4
subdivision standards as an incentive.
10. Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations,
and is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or other
plans of the City, because the design of the project is consistent with the intent of the R-3
zone to "provide housing for smaller households desiring little open space" in that all
units have qualifying private open spaces.
11. No feasible alternative to authorizing the exception would satisfy the intent of City
policies and regulations.
12. The Community Development Director recommended adoption of a Negative
Declaration with Mitigation Measures on June 16, 2008. The Planning Commission
finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the
potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Conditions:
1. The subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be
approved by the Community Development Director and the City Attorney prior to final
map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions:
a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for
professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways,
drainage, on-site sewer facilities, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and
landscaping.
b. Grant to the city the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association
fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and
the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of
CC&R's and final map are being met.
c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces.
d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked
in unauthorized places.
e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage
of inoperable vehicles.
f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas.
g. No change in City-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Attorney
approval.
Attachment
Resolution No.XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 5
h. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all
officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of
the association.
i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways
as required by the City Fire Department.
j. CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards
which are substantially screened from view.
k. Prospective property owners and renters shall be notified of the project's provision of
tandem parking. Additionally, they shall be advised that they should ensure that the
amount of on-site parking is adequate for their needs because they will not be able to
obtain on-street parking permits for any additional parking needs.
1. The responsibility for the placement of the trash and recycling containers at the street
on collection days will be the responsibility of the property owner's association. The
property owner's association shall coordinate with San Luis Garbage Company
regarding the collection time and preferred location for the placement of trash and
recycling containers to minimize the obstruction of the public right-of-way.
2. As part of the encroachment permit for the proposed frontage improvements, the
applicant shall submit plans to address any changes made to on-street parking, signage,
and striping to the approval of the City Engineer.
3. The applicant shall pay in-lieu fees for the 19 off-site parking spaces that will be
eliminated with development.
4. Short term bicycle parking shall be provided in a minimum of two locations; one for
bicyclists entering from Osos Street and one for bicyclists entering from Morro Street.
5. The details of the required lockable private storage areas (minimum of 200 cubic feet per
unit) shall be to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission.
6. The down sloping Morro Street driveway slope shall comply with City standard 2130.
7. To ensure pedestrian safety, the driveway exits shall provide a minimum of ten (10) feet
clear visibility to the sidewalk on both sides of the exit, unobstructed by building comers,
columns or other visual impediments. The distance is measured behind the stop bar and
two feet to the right of the centerline where a driver would be located in a stopped
vehicle.
8. The Drainage Report shall address post-development water quality per City Standard
1010B. Details of the passive design concept proposed shall be discussed in an amended
Attachment 5
Resolution No.XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 6
report and shown on plans submitted for final review by the Architectural Review
Commission.
9. New curb, gutter and sidewalk will be required along the project frontage on Osos Street
and Morro Street.
10. All wire utilities to the new units shall be underground. No additional utility poles shall
be set and no wires shall be extended across the proposed project to serve adjacent
properties.
11. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10' wide public utility and street tree easement across the
site frontage on Morro and Osos Streets. Said easements shall be adjacent to and
contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering the site.
12. The subdivider shall provide individual electrical, phone, television, natural gas, and
water service and related utility company meters to each unit to the approval of the
affected utility company and the Public Works Director. Sub-metering of the water
services may be allowed upon request and with the approval of the Utilities Director.
13. 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.
Code Requirements
The following code requirements are included for informational 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 may be identified during
the plan check process.
1. Long and short-term bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with City standards.
Bike lockers or interior space within each dwelling unit or accessory structure shall be
provided for the storage of at least two bicycles per dwelling unit. In addition, one short
term bicycle parking space shall be provided for guests of the residential units and a
minimum of three long term parking spaces and two short term parking spaces shall be
provided for the office uses. All bicycle parking shall be located outside of the public
right of way.
2. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
access, drainage, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the
final map or recorded separately prior to map recordation if applicable.
PHI - 9W
Attachment 5
Resolution No. XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 7
3. A preliminary soils report is required in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and
the City of San Luis Obispo Subdivision Regulations at the time of final map submittal.
The report shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the city's Subdivision
Regulations and the Subdivision Map Act.
On motion of seconded by , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 2008.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jonathan Lowell
GACD-PLANPricci\Pacific Courtyards(102-07)\\CC Rcso 102-07 Pacific Courtyards(GP-R,ER,TR)
�N1-9q
Attach Exhibit A
Attachment _,�
��u��i►��Illllllllllllllniu ��► h _
j
City-OrSMIU15 OBISW
Community Development Department•919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures
Project: ER 102-07
1321 and 1327 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
This agreement is entered into by and between the City of San Luis Obispo and Mission
Medical Partners, on the day of �y n.P 2008. The following measures
are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Please sign the
original and return it to the Community Development Department.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
AIR QUALITY
1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and
construction activities and vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment have the
potential to create dust.and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary
and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated:
a. Construction, vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles
per hour or less;
b. 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;
c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent
visible emissions from crossing the property line;
d. 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;
e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved
public road; and
f. 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:
These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and building plans. The applicant shall
present evidence of a plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading
or building permit from the City. The applicant shall provide the City with the name and
telephone number of the person responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements.
The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field.monitoring.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
2. Trees identified by the Architectural Review Commission to be preserved shall be clearly
marked on grading and construction plans. The applicant shall submit a tree reservation
agreement for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The
agreement shall be secured by a bond in the amount determined by the City Arborist.
EThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
�` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. PHI — 10C
J
Attachment 5
ER 902-07
Mitigation Agreement
Page 2
Monitoring Program:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit the required tree
preservation agreement and actively coordinate with the City Arborist during construction.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
3. If significant archaeological materials are discovered during grading and construction, all
construction activities that may damage those materials shall immediately cease. The
project sponsor shall then propose specific mitigation based on a qualified
archaeologist's recommendations. The Director shall approve, approve with changes, or
reject the mitigation proposal (if found incomplete, infeasible, or unlikely to reduce
adverse impacts to an acceptable level). If the proposal is approved, the project sponsor
shall implement mitigation, to the satisfaction of the Director. A copy of the
archaeologist's recommendations and the Director's decision will be forwarded to the
Cultural Heritage Committee. If grading results in the uncovering of artifacts, then
standard mitigation would be followed..
Monitoring Program:
Requirements for cultural resourcemitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project
grading and construction.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4. If further contamination is encountered with site grading activities, then work shall cease
until the City's Hazardous Material Coordinator has been notified and had the opportunity
to consult with other affected parties and appropriate governmental agencies to
determine any necessary next steps.
Monitoring Program:
The City's Hazardous Material Coordinator shall be the lead in reviewing any subsequent
studies necessary and assuring that any related site clean-up has taken place.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
5. To provide for adequate sight distance for the Morro Street access, on-street parking
shall be eliminated within 25 feet of the project driveway to the north and within 50 feet to
the south. -
6. The applicant shall install additional "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" signs on the back of
the existing stop signs at the intersection of Morro and Pacific Streets to reinforce the
message of the two-way stop controls.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with the required mitigation measures shall be reflected on the plans for project
grading and construction and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director
prior to City issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project.
PHI - I O
Attachment 5
ER 102-07 r
Mitigation Agreement
Page 3
The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse
environmental impacts. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the
applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration is released for public review. The Architectural Review Commission through final
review of project plans, and City staff will review detailed project plans through building and
grading plan checks, and occupancy release inspections, to accomplish compliance with these
mitigation measures as discussed in detail in the monitoring programs above.
If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above mitigation
measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to
meet the intent of the original measures.
Please note that section 15070 (b) (1) of the California Administrative Code requires the
applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration is released for public .review. This project.will not be scheduled for public
review and hearing until this signed original is returned to the Community Development
Department.
Doug- Davidgon Date Mission i ners
Deputy Community Development Director
Attachment 6
ORDINANCE NO. (2008 Series;
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING_ THE ZONING MAP TO RECONFIGURE THE BOUNDARY
BETWEEN THE OFFICE (0)AND MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL WITH THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION
OVERLAY(R-3-H)ZONING DISTRICTS ON THE SITE FOR THE
PROPERTY AT 1321 & 1327 OSOS STREET; GP/R/ER 102-07
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 9, 2008, and
recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August
19, 2008, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/TR/ER 102-07, Mission
Medical Partners,LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; 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.
BE IT ORDAINED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed modification is a minor amendment to the Zoning Map because it is a
boundary change only which retains the existing Office and Medium-High Density
Residential with Historical Preservation overlay zoning districts for the site with the
same relative proportions of the overall site area intact.
2. The proposed Rezoning will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of those
living and working in the vicinity since the proposed changes to the City's Zoning Map
accommodates the planned redevelopment of the site with uses and improvements that
will be compatible with other properties in the same block that are either zoned O, Office
or R-3, Medium-High Density Residential.
3. The Community Development Director recommended adoption of a Negative
Declaration with Mitigation Measures on June 16, 2008. The Planning Commission
finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the
potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Attachment 6
SECTION 2. Action. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (GP/R 102-07) is
hereby approved as identified within Exhibit A.
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 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 day of , 2008,AND FINALLY
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of ,
2008, on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APP ED AS TO
ity Attorney JonathanLowell
GACD-PLANPricci\Pacific Courtyards(102-07)\\CC Ord 102-07 Pacific Courtyards(GP-R,ER,TR)
PN 1 -loci
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
Zoning Map Amendment(GP/R 102-07)
O s2 s 2
O O
j 3- 3-
N- -N-
Qo R- � R-
Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning
R-3-H, Medium-High Density Residential with the Historical
Preservation overlay
O, Office
PN1 — tOc
-Attachment 6
Exhibit B
Land Use Element Map Amendment(GP/R 102-07)
O OO std' 2
2
O O
/ 3- / 3-
N- -N-
QR- _ Q� R-
.lei
Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use
Medium-High Density Residential
Office
PHI--IAC
Dear Mayor Romero and City Council,
I am writing in general support of the Pacific Courtyards project. As described by the
staff report, it promises to be an environmentally responsible and architecturally sensitve
infill project.
It does raise a significant issue, however, in that added population in that area of the
Downtown will put increased pressure on Mitchell Park. This is acknowledged by staff in
the environmental study. Yet, the staff report proposes waiving the open space
requirement and park-in-lieu fees.
Also, since the project application was submitted, the square footage of Mitchell Park has
been dramatically reduced by Council's decision to change the Master Plan to allow
parking rather than a community garden behind the old Kindergarten building, currently
used by a group of Seniors. With more and more residents living in the immediate area,
and paving over part of Mitchell Park, the Park will be severely impacted.
I urge Council to require the developer to provide park-in-lieu fees to the full extent
allowable under our ordinances, so that more Downtown parkland may be created. In the
future, the Downtown will attract more and more residents, and thus it follows that
developers must be required to also add more urban parkland. This is crucial to keeping
our city liveable, sustainable and attractive.
While you are at it, this is a good time to consider revisiting your decision to pave over
park of Mitchell Park. The City needs to increase, not reduce its urban parkland, as
projects such as this one continue to come forward.
Thank you for considering my opinion on this important issue.
Jan Howell Marx
265 Albert Drive RED FILE
RECEIVED .MEETING AGENDA
San Luis Obispo DATEITEM #-PJA 1
AUG 18 2008
SLO CITY CLERK
ad uba
JCOUNCIL CDD DIR
CAO 11 FIN DIR
l ACAO M FIRE CHIEF
® ATTORNEY 3 PW DIR
�I CLERKIORIG I POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS N REC DIR
IP 26a�bnvlL I IR
® HRD R
Y- CWMIJ
�- CIwK-
O
����������������►���������`������� council m e m o iza n b u m
DATE: August 18th, 2008 RED FILE RECEIVED
MEET NG AGENDA AUG 18 2008
TO: City CouncilD ITEM # /
SLO CITY CLERK
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO
FROM: Doug Davidson, Community Development Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Response to Jan Howell Marx - Public Hearing#1 (Pacific Courtyards)
The Pacific Courtyards project is required to pay the park in-lieu fees. There is no mention of
waiving these fees in the staff report. The recommendation to the Council does include a minor
exception to the total open space standards, however, the project does provide private and
common open space per City requirements. The Planning Commission believed the minor
exception was justifiable as an appropriate incentive for affordable housing and due to the site's
downtown location.
Please call Doug Davidson at extension#177 (781-7177) if you have any questions.
AR-o
*COUNCIL *CDD DIR
TCAO FIN DIR
F FIRE CHIEF
.ATTORNEY PW
DIR
VICLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
0 DEPT HEADS RECDIR
4_P/13 UTIL DIR -
�[j�junaE iHR DIR
�C CO u fts-f-4 C
x, �o
k ��