HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/1991, 5D - PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM SERVICE-COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO MEDIUM-HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO REZONE FROM M TO R-3-PD, INCLUDING A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 43 'IIIII���Illl�lllllnlll III MEETING DATE:
III° 9��I city of San tins OBISpo 3 -5- 9 ,1
GiiS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: /
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission recommendation to change the general plan
Land Use Element map from service-commercial/light industrial to
medium-high-density residential and to rezone from M to R-3-PD,
including a preliminary development plan for 43 condominiums, for
a five-acre site (Village Motel and Mobile Home Park) on the
southwest corner of South Street and Beebee Street (GP 1468; PD
1483) .
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
(1) Adopt the attached resolution to approve the negative
declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation, and to
amend the general plan Land Use Element map from "service-
commercial/light-industrial" to "medium-high-density
residential;" (2) introduce the attached ordinance to rezone
from manufacturing (M) to medium-high-density residential,
planned development (R-3-PD) , including approval of the
preliminary development plan, with findings, exceptions, and
conditions.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The property owner has asked the city to amend its general plan
and zoning for this site. The Planning Commission has supported
the project, with several changes from the design originally
submitted. The Architectural Review Commission has forwarded
comments, but has not voted to approve or deny the project. No
significant environmental or fiscal impacts are foreseen. The
major issues have been protection of affordable housing and
integration of the project into the neighborhood, which has a
wide range of commercial and residential uses, and major streets.
S -
���+►�►�►►►�IIIIIIINI� �l� city Of San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Address: 145 South Street
owner/applicant: Village Park Associates
Representatives: Studio Design Group (Warren Hamrick) ;
Crawford Multari & Starr
Zoning: M
Land Use Element map: service-commercial/light industrial
Environmental status: Director approved a negative declaration
for the revised project September 26, 1990, subject to
mitigation for soil contamination, archaeological resources, i
fire protection, and traffic noise exposure. The attached
initial study evaluates the proposal to change the whole
site from manufacturing to residential, in addition to the
specific features of the proposed development plan.
Action deadline: none for this legislative act
Site Description
The approximately five-acre site is a nearly level parcel
occupied by 27 single-story, wood-frame motel units, a detached
manager's residence, and 75 mobile homes or trailers, most dating
from the 1960 's or earlier. Surrounding uses include the bus
station, a bike shop, a printer, a tire shop, the recently
rebuilt Pacific Coast commercial and office center, a cemetery, a
modular-bridge builder, and houses.
Project Description
The preliminary development plan ("context plan") shows 41 of the
mobile homes remaining on the southern half of the site, while 43
residential condominiums would be built on the northern half (37
two-bedroom dwellings and six three-bedroom dwellings) . The
dwellings would be grouped in six buildings, with two stories j
over partially below-grade parking. Access to the new
condominiums would be from a single driveway on Beebee Street,
and South Street would be widened. Access to the remaining
mobile homes would be from two driveways on Bridge Street.
Evaluation
i
General plan
The general plan Housing Element and Land Use Element favor
protecting affordable housing from conversion to other uses, and
keeping commercial growth in line with the city's ability to
accommodate housing. This request is consistent with those
policies.
�i�������►►I�IIIIIfIIIP° �����II city of San Luis OBlspo
WaGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Is this site suitable for continued or more intense residential
use, considering the effects of nearby commercial and industrial
activities and major streets? Recent residential development on
sites with similar settings shows the community's support for
"mixed use" development at this scale. Those sites include east
on South Street at Exposition Drive, north along Beebee Street,
and on Margarita Avenue near South Higuera.
A lower residential density, such as medium-density residential
(R-2) , would also protect the existing housing, but would provide
less incentive to replace the motel units. Staff does not think
a lower density (12 units rather than 18 units per acre maximum)
would make a substantial difference in noise exposure or traffic.
However, lower densities do allow more site planning flexibility
and usable outdoor area.
Extent of site and development plan
Recommended condition #7 would require the final development plan
(a code requirement) to cover the whole area, while the applicant
originally proposed "PD" zoning for the condominium development
part of the site and "S" zoning for the part of the site to
remain a mobile home park. Also, the final development plan
would have to be approved by the Planning Commission, where the
code requires only that it be approved by staff.
At the ARC meeting when schematic plans were considered, the
applicant's representative questioned the city's authority to
regulate design features within a mobile home park, realizing
preemption of some aspects by the state. Staff believes the city
does have jurisdiction over basic site planning features within a
planned-development rezoning, regardless of the specific use of
the property. The state preempts only building code items.
Overall design
The project design makes efficient use of the site and will
improve traffic circulation on South Street. The architectural
and landscape design are attractive and consistent with the
emerging character of nearby residential areas which are being.
more intensely developed. The project complies with basic zoning
standards for density, coverage, and parking in the R-3 zone.
However, the project does require a building height exception and
setback exceptions, and exceptions from condominium standards.
While the project would provide modest housing, no specific level
of affordability is proposed.
Energy and water conservation
Roofs are suitably oriented to allow reasonable exposure for
solar panels. Building orientation is typical of recently
approved multifamily projects, and is neither particularly well
,::rb
����j�i�u►(VIIIIIIIiII�jIIUIII city of San lues OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
suitesuitea nor poorly- sultea tosuite passive heating ana cooling
opportunities (as evidenced by uniformity in each building
elevation, regardless of its north-south orientation) . Landscape
plans are generally compatible with solar access and shading
principles.
The planting plan reflects a water-conserving approach, with very
limited turf area. However, the ARC was concerned with the
amount of turf, where it would not serve a specific function, and
its location on slopes.
Wall height
The proposed walls along South Street and Beebee Street require a
height exception. They would be six feet tall, where three feet
is normally allowed. Such exceptions have been routinely granted j
for noise-mitigation walls. The applicant wants the walls
primarily for site security. Considering the arrangement of
buildings on the site and the elevated first-floor level and
decks and the second floor height, a six-foot-tall wall will not
substantially reduce traffic noise for indoor or usable outdoor
areas. An eight-foot wall would be substantially more imposing,
without a commensurate improvement in blocking noise, due to the
height of the dwellings in relation to the street. The walls
would be on the property line, four feet behind the sidewalk, and
would have insets for trees.
i
The Planning Commission recommends against granting an exception
for wall height. The Planning Commission has been concerned with
integrating new projects into their neighborhoods, so they do not i
become walled enclaves. The ARC did not reach a consensus for or
against the proposed walls along the streets.
Decks
The four elevated decks extending six feet into the required
yards along South Street and Beebee Street will require setback
exceptions, since they would project beyond the maximum four-
foot encroachment which is allowed without special approval. The
floors of the decks will be about six feet above the ground.
I
The Planning Commission thought the proposed decks would be
acceptable with glass screens for traffic noise control. The ARC
did not express a consensus. Staff favors relocating the decks
to avoid traffic noise and wind exposure, and to increase winter
sun exposure.
Pedestrian access
The Planning Commission has favored integrating residential
projects into their neighborhoods, to avoid "walled enclaves. "
Plans show a surrounding wall, which would separate the project
3zr
����►�►i►�IIIII[IIIp ���N MY Of san tins OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
from the remaining mobile home park a-n-d-w-Hich would prevent
convenient pedestrian access to South Street. In response to
these concerns, conditions would require:
- Providing a fence, rather than a concrete-block wall,
between the condominiums and the mobile homes, with a
pedestrian gate near the "future driveway;" (condition #2]
- Providing an opening for pedestrians in the wall along South
Street, near building "D;" (condition #1] .
The Planning Commission did not support height exceptions for the
proposed walls along South Street and Beebee Street, so they are
limited by the Zoning Regulations to three feet, or slightly more
if set back from the property lines.
i
Parking
i
Zoning Regulations require 98 vehicle parking spaces to be
provided. Plans show 101 spaces. In most condominium projects,
the commission has required 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling,
which would be 108 spaces for this project. (The 101 spaces
shown result in a ratio of 2.35 spaces per dwelling. )
The commission has been concerned that the number of parking
spaces required by code may not be sufficient for large
condominium projects, especially those near Cal Poly, which
typically have high student occupancy and car ownership, and
those with relatively little opportunity for on-street parking
due to limited frontage or frontage on arterial streets, where
parking is not allowed. Parking will not be allowed along South
Street, but the Beebee Street and Bridge Street frontages would
provide additional spaces for visitors.
The following table summarizes the parking situation.
Parking required Parking per "2 .5 spaces Parking provided
by code /unit condo policy"
Cars mtrcyc. bikes cars mtrcyc. bikes cars mtrcyc. bikes
I
98* 5 5 108 5 5 101 5 15
*reduced to 96 by providing 10 more bicycle spaces than
required
Providing additional car parking spaces would require changes to
the plans. Options for providing a higher parking ratio include:
A. Providing additional "guest parking" spaces along the
drive, but at the expense of reduced open space.
111111IIIIIIIIIa:11 city of San Luis OBlspo
mi;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
15. Reaucing Enenumber octwe.L.Lings 15y three would be
needed to achieve the 2.5 ratio with 101 parking
spaces) .
C. Providing additional parking spaces in the area
proposed to remain available for mobile homes, which
would require removing additional mobile homes.
Plans do not show details of the motorcycle/bicycle parking.
Although not required by the Planning Commission, staff suggests
that bike lockers be available. [condition #3]
The two parking spaces between buildings D and E. facing South
Street, extend about five feet into the minimum required 15-foot
street setback. If a four- to six-foot tall wall remains, people
on the street would not be aware of these two parking spaces,
regardless of their setback. The spaces apparently are located
so far north to allow room for the curb radius on the building D
driveway, including a light pole, and a trash enclosure. The
Planning Commission recommends approval of this exception.
Building height
The maximum building height would be 37 feet, while the maximum
allowed for this zone is 35 feet. An exception may be approved
as part of the PD approval. The added height is due in part to
filling the site to mitigate flooding. Due to the pitched roofs
and gable design, a relatively small part of the buildings would
exceed the height limit.
The Planning Commission supports this exception. The ARC did not
express a consensus; one commissioner said the height was
acceptable; another said the buildings were large and bulky.
Planned development findings
i
In order to approve a planned-development rezoning, the
commission and council must find that it meets one or more of the
following criteria.
1. Providing facilities or amenities suited to a particular
group;
2 . Transferring allowable development from areas of greater
sensitivity to areas of less sensitivity;
3 . Providing more affordable housing than conventional
development;
4. Achieving such goals as privacy, usable open space, and
neighborhood compatibility better than strict application of
zoning standards;
�,���i�►►►(VIIIIIII�p► II�III city of San lues OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
5. Using less materials, energy, or water than conventional
development;
6. Providing exceptional public benefits.
As the city's development standards and routine expectations are
raised (for example, for water-conserving landscaping) , it
becomes increasingly difficult to justify planned-development
approvals as being different from "conventional development. "
The Planning Commission thinks this project can be found to meet
the third criterion, since the intent is to provide modest
housing for moderate-income workers or students, where conversion
of the motel and mobile homes to commercial uses would not.
Also, relaxation of height and setback standards arguably helps
provide usable open space and neighborhood compatibility better j
than strict application of zoning standards (criterion #4) .
I
California Government Code findings
State law requires the city to make specific findings if it
requires lower density within, or denies, a housing project which
conforms with the general plan, zoning, and development policies
(Calif. Gov. Code 65589.5) . Since the proposal requires a
general plan amendment, rezoning, and zoning exceptions, none of
which have been approved, the council may deny the project or
approve it with reduced density, without making the findings.
Condominium standards
Two aspects will require a redesign or City Council approval of
exceptions, in order to approve a tract map for condominiums.
(The project could be built as apartments without meeting the
open-space standards or without having exceptions approved. ) The
required findings for condominium exceptions make them difficult
to grant in all but exceptional circumstances. The council is
not considering a tract map at this time, but should know the
extent to which approving this design may prompt requests for
exceptions when a tract map is reviewed.
The condominium standards require at least 100 square feet of
private open space, accessible directly from each unit, outside
the minimum street yard required by zoning, and with a minimum
dimension of six feet if provided by a deck. The size and
dimensions of the proposed decks meet the standard, but four of
them are within street yards required by zoning. Also, decks
facing South Street could meet noise exposure standards only by
having six-foot tall, solid railings --limiting views and light-
- or glass screens extending above solid, three-foot railings.
The environmental mitigation requires these features or,
�����►r►►►iulllll�Ilpn�u►9���I Gly/ Of San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
relocating the decks. The Planning Commission chose to recommend
approval of the exception allowing encroachment of the decks into
the yard setback. They discussed putting the decks on the south
side of the buildings for added benefits of reducing wind
exposure and increasing winter sun exposure, but felt that other,
overriding design drawbacks would result from the relocation.
The standards require at least 100 square feet per dwelling of
common open space. The project would have about 880 square feet
per dwelling. The standards also call for common recreation
facilities: at least 20 square feet per dwelling if indoors, or
40 square feet per dwelling if outdoors. Plans do not show any
such facilities, but there appears to be adequate space for them j
between buildings A and B. In other projects, such facilities
have consisted of children's play equipment, or bar-b-que pits
and tables, or ball courts.
i
The standards require at least 400 square feet per unit of total
qualifying open space. The project would have about 1, 000 square
feet per unit.
The amount of common and total open space available would be
reduced if the proposed number of dwellings is maintained and the
parking ratio is increased, to conform to the Planning
Commission's 2.5 space per dwelling unit policy.
i
Development plan consistency
i
some minor inconsistencies exist in the recommended preliminary
plans, which should be resolved in the final development plan:
1. Item #5 on the site plan, 1124 ' Roadway, " actually
narrows to 20 feet width. Twenty feet will .meet j
driveway and fire-access standards.
2. The landscape plan shows the decks and some other
features differently from the site plan, since the
landscape plan was not revised accordingly.
Vegetation
i
The Planning Commission recommends a condition requiring
preservation of "as much of the on-site vegetation as possible. --
(Condition
ossible. "(Condition #7) The preliminary site plan and grading plan show
all existing trees would be removed within the area to be
developed with condominiums.
Conversion impact
The applicant has submitted the "impact report" required by state
law for converting a mobile home park to another use. The
.SU
����!��►�uul►Ilillp° ��Ill MY Of San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
c urr ent version, including correspondence from residents, is
attached.
While it appears that owners of mobile homes will not be
displaced, there are no guarantees as part of city action on the
project. The project will displace mobile home renters and
occupants of the motel units, consisting of 70 to 100 mostly low-
income people who stay for one to several months.
The agreement to retain the "mobile home site" referred to in
condition #7 of the attached draft resolution applies to that i
part of the existing mobile home park (41 of 75 mobile homes)
shown in the preliminary development plan to remain.
I
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
At a public hearing on January 10, 1990, the Planning Commission
voted four to one (with one absent and one vacancy) to recommend
approval of the general plan amendment. At a public hearing on
December 12, 1990, the Planning Commission voted four to two (one
vacancy) to recommend approval of the rezoning and the
preliminary development plan, with findings and conditions listed
in the attached draft rezoning ordinance. The length of time
between the two actions resulted from the time period required by
the applicant to submit a preliminary plan for the PD rezoning.
Minutes of these meetings are attached. The commission received
a letter from the representative of the neighboring Pacific Coast
Center, requesting an expanded traffic study (attached) and a
letter from Bailey Bridges opposing residential zoning where it
would not be compatible with surrounding industrial uses (copy
not available) .
The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) considered the project
on January 21, 1991. The ARC voted unanimously to determine that
the existing buildings to be removed are not architecturally,
culturally, or historically significant, and to continue action,
while forwarding individual comments to the council. The ARC
chose to not grant schematic approval. Individual commissioners
made the following comments. Items #1 through #6 would require
ARC reconsideration and could lead to substantial changes in the
design. Items #7 through #13 could be refinements, to be shown
in the final development plan.
i
1. A model or perspective simulation would be helpful to
visualize the proposed buildings in relation to each
other and to existing, surrounding buildings;
2. Plans should show full floor plans of the buildings,
including relationships of decks, entries, windows, and
surrounding features;
������►►II�Ililllllll�u ��IN city of San Luis osIspo
MiN COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
3 . Existing trees should a saved, even it wells around
the trunks are necessary;
4. The western driveway should be extended, along the
existing mobile home park driveway to remain, and
connect with Bridge Street to provide an exit other
than on South Street;
5. Car noise from the sunken parking will reverberate,
affecting the dwellings and outdoor areas;
6. The dwellings entries should be more evident from the
walkways;
7. Privacy is reduced by having decks overlooking other
decks and the mobile homes;
I
8. Rather than dumpsters, which are noisy and do not
encourage recycling, there should be space for
"wheelers" and recycling bins;
9. The fence separating the condominiums and the mobile
homes should not be chain link;
10. A perimeter wall is acceptable if it is set back from
the sidewalk and has a landscaped berm;
i
11. The buildings should have individual color schemes;
I
12. Dwelling entries are too close to bedroom windows;
13 . Dwelling entries will be too dark; skylights would
help.
One commissioner questioned the city's intent for a traffic
signal at South Street and Beebee Street. (The Public Works
Department has no plans for a signal there. )
ALTERNATIVES
The council may deny the request. The council may continue
action, with direction to the applicant and staff. The council
may approve the planned-development rezoning with findings,
exceptions, and conditions other than those recommended by the
Planning Commission or staff.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Given current tax rules and city spending patterns, commercial
uses generally have a higher ratio of revenues to costs than do
S '� o
���H�►>I►IIIVIIIIIIIIIPI ���1�1 MY Of San tuts OBISPO
161ilhimS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
uses generally have a higher ratio of revenues to costs than do
residential uses. However, a long-term revenue and cost
comparison for this site is not available. No significant
impacts are foreseen.
RECOMMENDATION
(A) Adopt the attached resolution to approve the negative
declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation, and to
amend the general plan Land Use Element map from "service-
commercial/light-industrial" to "medium-high-density
residential. " (B) Introduce the attached ordinance to rezone
from manufacturing (M) to medium-high-density residential,
planned development (R-3-PD) , including approval of the
preliminary development plan, with findings, exceptions, and
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and with
additional conditions recommended by staff, as follows to reflect
an Architectural Review Commission concern and an environmental
analysis mitigation measure:
8. Final development plan shall provide for waste wheelers
and recycling bins rather than dumpsters.
9. A qualified archaeologist will instruct the project's
construction contractors in how to recognize resources
that may be encountered. If excavations encounter
archaeological resources, 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. Disposition of artifacts shall comply
with state and federal laws. A note concerning this
requirement shall be included on the grading and
construction plans for the project.
ATTACffiLENTS
Draft resolution amending the Land Use Element map
Draft ordinance amending the zoning map i
Draft resolution denying requests
Vicinity map
Initial environmental study
Conversion impact report
Applicant's statement
Planning Commission minutes
Correspondence
gmD: VLPRR-CC.WP
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
CONCERNING 145 SOUTH STREET (GP 1468)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held public hearings on the proposed amendment in accordance with
the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the potential. environmental impacts of the
amendment have been evaluated in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the city's Environmental
Guidelines;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Finding. The amendment maintains general plan
internal consistency and promotes the public health, safety, and
welfare.
SECTION 2. Environmental determination. An initial
environmental study has been prepared (ER 69-89) , and the council
hereby approves a negative declaration, with mitigation as
contained in that study.
SECTION 3 . Adoption. The general plan Land Use Element map
is amended as fully contained in the attached Exhibit A. The
Community Development Director shall cause the change to be
reflected in the documents published by the city.
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 , 1991.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
3 - /�
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Page 2
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
C' y to n(eey
1 v
Community Dev 1 pment Director
gmD: 1468-res.wp
�b -/3
RESOLUTION N0. 1991 SERIES
EXHIBIT A
AMEND LAND USE ELEMENT
SERVICE—COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO
MEDIUM—HIGH—DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
•,e .. / v /• • ..... ............ .....
...... ... '::: :: ........:.... j
r .. jY
I �. .-
-.- ., .J �r ti4S• i � 7Y }
7 <rSOIJIN STREET
�< \r 7 C�`� �l��//1�fJ/ /Y:;�:1• ^...•_.g.....�. ""..'..�::•�"..."• Jr�;F I"T � °� ••iiiii• .4 y'.r, /:.....::'•::::'
f�
•;art .:: rel: �.li�
J
r
x
1
,
J•
'J r
r.
Y:, Y•-
Y
Y
3
•.J T
J
M'ti' T 11•ti .
•.7
Y2.j
.�
r
l�
.a
-'. r
..........
t
.i-
1-
Y - - :ice './' .r,• y
q
a r.
• 7:'� '?STyI /i�. ,Jr :)Jr w� J.'3,:��': .17�.i1<� '1� +�•'•
•., ) .T� .:��+ 1. �•. ,-f+` :�•�,:. -..��.i.. '>.
+'�1 -'.a f.l•, .�1•`�i•.'i.' jry�,-t�.:tY);+Lf�. r.. :4L. -
1:' i) �.)J�J:`3.`�).•...+''.r'S i�i��l'''!'.�' •1��\Y�•���.:'1 y,'��,til,`1 �� ��.,:Y.
'L I '7 j'y'r%:.�• �i"'7'•i �•'�;}1`r 'l:j:1. '� flX1. v47,
. '
Y
sm
�ti•
r
................................................
ms's
.................................. ?i
....................:. : :i::::
�i
.p
4•
_ • �o=u°o°o °" 00
rti.:.i'i i iii.iiiii iiiiii::E '[C:: .., ,y .:-3'`•;p.\. o.�}:.. 'T",
0
_ ....Jeee,�=sasses •::: ..:::. :::::::::. :::..: _ c �3•,�?:��"`-']�. . .:'?;;
. .., -• .- .. oee< eoeeeoeee°ee 'r:..... q -'.r .,:..,,r — :.i �:.x.,;•.1y ,�
°o°o°e:.1°eoeeveeeeee M G 4
r.• •' ,°ee��aaoeeeoeeYi
ae .................................... .. s ...
a
_ .ti eee�e°eeeeeee — -
< ...asses �}3 '
....eeeo -DaaAAGe
iz
3
� fir
�A
r�
1; 3
,: • ) T:
- - •.
r
1)
.y.
-r 1
ti
_ V T
_y a
ORDINANCE NO. (1991 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
REZONING AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR PROPERTY AT 145 SOUTH STREET (PD 1483)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council
have held public hearings to consider appropriate zoning for the
site in accordance with the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed
zoning is consistent with the general plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a negative
declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment promotes the public
health, safety and general welfare;
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The official zone map is hereby amended,
from manufacturing (M) to medium-high-density residential,
planned development (R-3-PD) , as shown in the attached Exhibit- A,
included in this ordinance by reference, and the preliminary
development plan on file in the office of the Community
Development Department is approved, with the findings,
exceptions, and conditions fully contained in the attached
Exhibit B, included in this ordinance by reference.
i
SECTION 2 . This ordinance, together with the votes for
and against, shall be published once, at least five (5) days
prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper
published and circulated in this city. This ordinance shall go
into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final
passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day
of 1991, on motion of
seconded by and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Ordinance No. (1991 Series)
Page 2
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City"Y
Officer
C. y for
Community De opment Director
ORDINANCE No. 1991 SERIES
EXHIBIT A
REZONE FROM M To R-3-PD
EI ! 2
ARAN -1w
Fj
1 r7
61
............ [7
El
................... WrRWET .......................
s0urH
•WC t6
R LLXI
A"
AM99
xii
:17.11
Ul
........ ........
M
C—S
PD`: :
X.........
3
w AW•W AN A 163 91
....... ..........................
kIII5 qc y r7
M
I{1111 Y
SLJO
.................
BRIOGS: 'S'T BRIOGr= STREW
ARCVR-r29mT
L C-S
3
C/os -
40
0 C/C•
P®
-17
ordinance No. (1991 Series)
EXHIBIT B
Findings
1. The planned development will provide facilities and
amenities suited to more affordable housing than
conventional development.
2. The planned development is consistent with the general plan,
as amended, and meets zoning ordinance requirements, except
as specifically described below.
3 . An initial environmental study has been prepared and
recommended mitigation measures are included in conditions
of project approval.
Exceptions
1. A yard exception for decks along South Street and Beebee
Street, as shown in the preliminary development plan, is
hereby granted, provided that no deck shall extend closer
than four feet to any street property line.
2 . A maximum building height of 37 feet is approved.
3 . A yard exception for two parking spaces facing South Street,
as shown in the preliminary development plan, is hereby
granted.
Conditions
1. Any wall along South Street shall include a gap for
pedestrian access near the northwest corner of the site.
2 . Any barrier along the south boundary of the condominium site
shall consist of a fence, with design subject to approval by
the Architectural Review Commission, rather than a wall.
Any fence shall include a gap or gate for pedestrian access
near the southwest corner of the site.
3 . Final development plan shall show details of motorcycle
parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces, to the approval
of the Community Development Department. The numbers of
such spaces shall be as required by code, based on the
required vehicle parking spaces. At least ten bicycle
lockers shall be provided.
4. Prior to occupancy, developer shall pay to the city a share
of the cost of installing a Fire-Department-actuated traffic
signal controller for the intersection of South Street and
Higuera Street, to the approval of the Fire Department.
Such controller must be installed prior to occupancy.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall
provide to the city Fire Department an assessment of soil
and groundwater contamination for the entire site. The
extent of the investigation, the form of the report, and any
required decontamination shall be subject to approval by the
city Fire Department.
6. Owner shall dedicate to the city right-of-way for the
widening of South Street, and shall improve the frontages of
South Street, Beebee Street, and Bridge Street, with roadway
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees, all to the
approval of the City Engineer.
7. Applicant shall submit a final development plan covering the
entire property, from South Street to Bridge Street,
including all proposed changes and improvements for the
mobile home park area to remain. Final development plan
shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission, and
such plan shall be accompanied by a recorded instrument
agreeing to retain the mobile home site as a mobile home
park for no less than fifteen years. Said development plan
shall attempt to preserve as much of the on-site vegetation
as possible.
gmD: 1483ord.WP
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
DENYING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING
CONCERNING 145 SOUTH STREET (GP 1468)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held public hearings on the proposed amendment in accordance with
the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the
amendment have been evaluated in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the city's Environmental
Guidelines;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The requested amendment and rezoning
would not be consistent with general plan policy, and would not
promote the public health, safety, and welfare.
SECTION 3 . Denial. The requests to amend the general plan
Land Use Element map and to rezone from manufacturing (M) to
medium-high density residential, with or without combining
designations, (R-3, R-3-S, or R-3-PD) are hereby denied.
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 , 1991.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
C?o
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Page 2
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
Pte..
t % / re
Community Dev opment Director
• BRAN
vMtN7U5t
R-21lu
-- _
U
• 1
La, W - Jutow,n,w _ Y : ,_ s r I.; _ .
D5 n '-� 1j.L_Ir.., I
` �\L • ru w r. I
.r•r.
173•!9 = Gll'J SVQJQI •"••rcl
a
\w, q •t
L7•.. I _
`JJ
,.. 1
sou
p
men% .1
.nL.
rYy O { MLr
•
wn� wleg
3 TtwJtr t7.M 4 _
® n c-S 71T ----
of N....-. ..[..N V
W
wz
--N
C
SRIDGEI !ST. SR10 =7
AX SR-r2l rnT
in
rYSI\O�JLs. 0 i. .11.1!• .L�. I
�G
Li1W«W•
1
I
C -S M
url0•M �` r Joh J r I l\J .. •� '
• Let �� 9 rea.•
c /o s `%
I ' .
VICINITY MAP P P I S� NORTH
f7 IO Zc0 iv
city of san lues oBispo
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 1 a5 cni v+n C+rAo+ APPLICATION N0. 69-89(rev)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Replace motel units and mobile homes with 43 residential condominiums.
APPLICANT Village Park
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY Glen Matteson, Associate Planner DATE 9-21-90
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE 9-12to/90
I
. v
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... NO*
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... NO*
C. LAND USE ....................................................................... NO
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. NO*
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................ YES. mitigation*
F. UTILITIES........................................................................ NO*
G. NOISE LEVELS .................................................................... YES. mitigation*
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... NC*
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... NO
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. NO*
K. PLANT LIFE...................................................................... NO*
LANIMAL LIFE..................................................................... NO
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL..................................................... YFS m i t i gat i nn*
N. AESTHETIC .................................................... ..... YES, not c i qn i f i rant*
0. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE .......................................................... Nn
P. OTHER ..........Toxics........................................................ YFC; myi_+igA+; n*
Ill.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT y�
� -�3
Revised and Expanded
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY 69-89
Village Park general plan amendment, rezoning, and
development plan (GP/R 1468; PD 1483)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT & SETTING
Village Park has asked the city to amend its general plan Land Use Element map, to
change the designation of a five-acre site from service-commercial/light-industrial to
medium-high density residential. The applicant also proposes to rezone about 2.4
acres of the site from manufacturing (M) to medium-high-density residential (R-3),
and about 2.6 acres to medium-high-density residential, planned development (R-3-
PD). With a planned-development rezoning, the city approves a specific development
along with a zone change, and exceptions to normal property-development standards
may be granted.
The nearly level site, consisting of foto adjacent parcels, is occupied by 27 single-
story, wood-frame motel units, a detached manager's residence, and 65 mobile homes
or trailers, most dating from the 1960's or earlier. Surrounding uses include the
Greyhound bus station, a bike shop, a printer, a tire shop, the recently rebuilt Pacific
Coast commercial and office center, a cemetery, a modular-bridge builder, and houses.
The revised preliminary development plan submitted by the applicant shows 43 of the
mobile homes remaining on the southern half of the site, while 43 residential
condominiums would be built on the northern hal£ replacing the motels units,
manager's residence, and 22 mobile homes. The condominiums would be grouped in
six buildings, with two residential stories over parking. Access would be from a single
driveway on Beebee Street, and South Street would be widened.
POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A Community plans and ,goals
The reduction in commercial/industrial potential, increase in residential potential, and
enhanced protection of existing low-cost housing are consistent with the general plan
Land Use Element and the Housing Element.
B Population distribution and growth: residential displacement
The project will result in more people living on the site, but the increase will not be
significant from a citywide perspective.
Rezoning the site will avoid displacement that could occur under commercial zoning.
Village Park Environmental Review 2
The applicant has prepared a mobile home park conversion report, required by state
law for proposals to change mobile home parks (or parts of them) to other uses
("Project Impact Report," September 12, 1990, attached). It concludes that there will
be no involuntary displacement of mobile home owners, and that mobile home
renters, who are on month-to-month rental agreements, will be given 60 days notice.
No significant displacement impacts are foreseen.
D. Transportation and circulation
Traffic impacts are not expected to be significant, since the residential development
will not substantially increase the number of trips and the proposed project will
increase the capacity of South Street while reducing the number of driveways on it.
The site is bordered by two lightly used, partially improved commercial collector
streets (Beebee and Bridge), and by a partially improved arterial (South Street).
Existing vehicle access is from a pair of two-way driveways on South Street. The
nearby intersections of Higuera Street with South Street and with Madonna Road are
the primary areas likely to be affected by the project, where capacity and levels of
service are concerns. At peak travel times, the Higuera-South intersection is
approaching level of service "D," with lines of cars westbound on South Street waiting
to turn south on Higuera Street through a signal cycle and queuing past the Parker
Street intersection. Left turns to and from South Street by vehicles from the site and
from Parker Street (Greyhound bus station access) contribute to delays and accidents.
South Street east of Higuera Street currently carries 17,000 to 20,000 trips per day,
based on counts within the last five years. Higuera Street south of South Street
carries 25,000 to 30,000 trips per day.
With traffic likely to result from build-out of land use shown in the general plan, and
assuming no major road widening or new roads, levels of service on all arterial streets
and intersections in the vicinity, except South Street, would reach level of service "E"
or "F" —congestion with intolerable delay (DKS Associates, City-Wide Transportation
Study Draft, July 1990). With build-out and major road projects as outlined in the
Draft Circulation Element (July 1990), future levels of service on streets in the
vicinity would be "D" or higher, with the exception of Madonna Road from Higuera
to 101 (level "F") and to the Madonna Inn driveway (level "E").
Full development of the site under its current designation would produce about 2,200
trips per day.(assuming 40,000 square feet of low-intensity retail and 40,000 square
feet of service businesses, and using trip generation factors consistent with the DKS
traffic model). Full development under the residential designation would produce
about 700 trips per day. The existing uses would be expected to produce about 800
trips per day using the DKS trip generation rates.
Village Park Environmental Review 3
Road changes proposed at this time are:
- Removing driveway access from South Street and placing it on Beebee Street;
- Widening South Street to its full planned width, including two travel lanes in
each direction, a central turn lane, and bicycle lanes.
The request for zone change is an indication that further residential development is
perceived as more feasible than commercial redevelopment, and therefore probably
would occur sooner. Therefore, the access changes and road widening would occur
sooner with the project than without it.
The site is within easy bicycle distance of employment and service centers downtown
and at Madonna Road. Three .of the city's four bus routes run within 300 feet of the
site; one of these three routes runs along its South Street frontage. However, the
project design discourages rather than encourages walking and use of busses, because
the perimeter wall would require some residents to walk as much as two blocks
distance out of their way to reach Higuera Street.
E. Public services
Fire Protection
The project will enhance safety by replacing substandard structures with structures
meeting current codes, including the requirement for fire sprinklers. The site appears
to be within the city's standard four-minute response time from fire station #1 at
Pismo and Garden streets, with the Madonna Road station for secondary response.
There are several optional routes from station #1. However, the Fire Department is
concerned that congestion on downtown streets could delay emergency response to
this location. The Fire Department recommends installation of an actuator at the
Higuera-South intersection which would allow fire personnel to override the traffic
signal's normal cycle, to improve emergency response time.
Mitigation: Applicant shall provide a traffic-signal actuator, approved by the Fire
Department, at the intersection of Higuera and South streets prior to project
occupancy.
Monitoring: Occupancy release by the Fire Department.
F. Utilities
Demand for city water currently exceeds the safe yield of supplies. The city has
responded by adopting measures to restrict water use and development. The council
has initiated amendments to further limit allocation of water to development, so a
Village Park Environmental Review 4
balance between safe yield and normal demand can be reached sooner as new water
sources are developed. These measures would apply to any further development or
change of use on the site, and will mitigate potential water-use impacts.
The city's sewage treatment plant currently violates water quality standards, and
operates at about 86 percent of its hydraulic capacity (based on average dry weather
flow before water rationing). A project under consideration (ER 46-89) would
improve treatment levels to meet water quality standards and increase hydraulic
capacity by about five percent. No additional sewer-treatment mitigation is necessary.
G. Noise levels
The proposed rezoning will reduce potential noise generation from land use activities,
since there would be less traffic, fewer trucks, and no potential for on-site
manufacturing. However, the project may increase or prolong exposure to undesirable
noise levels from nearby streets and businesses.
Replacement of the motel units with dwellings constructed to current noise and energy
standards is expected to mitigate indoor noise exposure concerns. Outdoor noise
exposure at the interior of the project, away from major streets, where buildings and
distance will reduce traffic noise, is expected to be within the standards of the Noise
Element. However, outdoor noise exposure for the decks along South Street, about
67 dBA Un, will be at the high end of the "normally unacceptable" range of the
city's noise standards (attached Noise Analysis by David Lord, September 11, 1990).
Since the decks will be elevated six to seven feet above the street level, the proposed
sound wall will not protect them. As shown in the preliminary plans, the decks would
not comply with general plan policies for outdoor noise exposure. Noise exposure
could be reduced to acceptable levels with design changes.
Mitigation: Final plans will reflect one or a combination of the following measures
to reduce to acceptable levels traffic noise exposure along South Street:
Relocation of decks to building elevations facing east, south, or west;
Provision of glass screens above solid deck railings;
Extension of the solid deck railings from about three feet to about six feet tall.
Monitoring: Community Development staff review of final plans, and
construction inspection.
Construction activities will temporarily increase noise levels in the vicinity. Primary
causes will be demolition and hauling of debris, grading, and importation and
compaction of fill. Haul routes will be along arterial streets. The impacts will be
similar to other recent projects of comparable size in the city, and will not be
significant.
s� � 47
Village Park Environmental Review 5
H. Topog=hic changes
Preparation of the site will require excavating about 3,000 cubic yards of soil and
filling about 10,000 cubic yards, with about 7,000 cubic yards of imported soil. The
deepest cut will be about seven feet, and the deepest fill will be about two feet. The
most abrupt grade change of two feet will occur along a retaining wall at the
southwest 'comer of the site. Topographic changes will not be significant.
J Drainage. flooding, and water qualiri
No water quality impacts are foreseen.
Part of the site is within flood zone "A," subject to flooding about one foot deep
about once in one-hundred years. Flooding would be due primarily to overflow from
San Luis Obispo Creek to the north and west, and from the nearby tributary which
runs south of the site. The city's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations will require
that floors be at least one foot above the 100-year flood level and that development
not displace flood water sufficient to raise the flood elevation. These requirements
would apply regardless of land-use zone.
K Plant life
The site contains 15 trees or large shrubs which would be removed, including two
large sycamores and two large California peppers. None of the existing trees are rare
species, unique specimens, or significant wildlife habitat The landscape plan shows a
variety of trees and shrubs to be planted throughout the site, with about four trees to
replace each tree to be removed. Tree removal will be adequately mitigated by
replacement planting.
M Archaeological and historical resources
The site, near a confluence of creeks, may have hosted Chumash use before European
settlement However, natural changes within the flood plain and soil disturbance from
construction after European settlement have probably removed or damaged pre-
historic cultural materials.
Neighboring property to the west was the base of operations for the narrow-gauge
railroad which connected San Luis Obispo and the Southern Pacific Railroad with
Port Harford (Port San Luis). In addition to a Japanese cultural center on the west
.side of Higuera Street, the vicinity was the location for commercial and residential
development beginning in the mid 1800's. While the site contains no historical
structures, subsurface artifacts from San Luis Obispo's early commercial development
may be .present.
s� - ag
Village Park Environmental Review 6
The following standard mitigation is recommended.
Mitigation: A qualified archaeologist will instruct the project's construction
contractors in how to recognize resources that may be encountered. If excavations
encounter archaeological resources, 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. Disposition of
artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement
shall be included on the grading and construction plans for the project.
Monitoring: Plan checking by Community Development Department staff.
N. Aesthetics
The new buildings will cause a substantial change in the appearance of the site. The
buildings will be taller than most residential buildings in the neighborhood, exceeding
the 35-foot height limit by about two feet. However, the scale of the buildings will
be mitigated by the use of broad, sloping roofs, a variety of dormer and gable forms,
horizontal board siding, and window trim, all of which recall elements of older
residential buildings in the vicinity.
The six-foot tall walls along South Street and Beebee Street would be continuous,
with small offsets. While similar walls have been installed along condominium
projects to the east on South Street, they are not in character with the older
residential neighborhood in the vicinity, where dwellings generally have traditional
street yards. The proposed design, however, would be consistent with existing walls
on the south side of the street, along condominium sites to the east, and would
provide greater separation from the street traffic noise than traditional street yards.
The visual impact of the wall as seen form the street will be softened by the five-
foot, planted separation between the walls and the sidewalk, offsets for trees, and the
"cut-off comer at the intersection.
Adverse aesthetic impacts are judged to be not significant. This judgment can be
reversed by the Planning Commission, the Architectural Review Commission, or the
City Council during further project review.
P. Toxics
The city Fire Department has recommended that there be an assessment of soil and
groundwater contamination for the entire site, since it is adjacent to the former
railroad servicing area where petroleum products may have entered the ground.
There is no evidence of an immediate threat to public health or safety. An
Village Park Environmental Review 7
investigation of the neighboring Pacific Coast Center site found low levels of
contamination. .
Mitigation: Prior to issuance of a building permit for any substantial construction on
the site, the applicant shall provide to the city Fire department an assessment of soil
and groundwater contamination for the entire site. The extent of the investigation,
the form of the report, and any required decontamination shall be subject to approval
by the city Fire Department.
Monitoring: Community Development Department and Fire Department_staff
will confirm the adequacy of information and any required clean-up measures
before issuing permits for any substantial construction.
CONCLUSION
The general plan map change and rezoning do not involve significant impacts.
Potential utility and flooding impacts of the proposed development will be addressed.
by code requirements. Potential impacts concerning noise exposure, archaeological
resources, and toxics contamination will be mitigated to insignificant levels.
gmD: er69-89.wp
David Lord, MArch, Ph.D. 299 Albert Drive
Acouctinl ConsWiant San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
(805)549-SW6
September 11, 1990
Noise Analysis
for the proposed
Village Park Development
145 South Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
Architects: Studio Design Group
641 Higuera St.
San Luis Obispo, CA
With regard to land use compatibility, potential noise conflict, and noise mitigation
measures, I have examined the architectural plans for the proposed development and
have conducted an on-site noise survey. My findings and recommendations are as
follows:
Findings:
With respect to planning considerations, the Noise Contour Map of the Noise Element
of the San Luis Obispo General Plan shows South Street, near South Higuera Street, to
lie on the Ldn contour of approximately 65. Beebee Street is on the contour of
approximately Ldn = 60. The contour lines on the Noise Contour Map are predicted by
calculations and are not measured values. The contours of Ldn or Day-Night Sound
Levels are only validated by on-site noise surveys.
From August 31 through Sept 3, I surveyed the site of the proposed development with an
ANSI calibrated sound-level meter, set to measure dBA sound levels, at eight different
times through a 24 hour day. The dBA sound level readings were converted to the
statistical value of L., the day/night sound level. The Ldo is the Day-Night Sound Level
described in the General Plan and is a statistical descriptor of the sound over a 24-hour
period, taking account of the fact that sounds are more annoying at night than during the
day. The Ldo is calculated by determining the equivalent sound level over a 24-hour
period after adding 10 dBA to the sound levels occurring in the period from 10 pm to 7
am
There are several factors that influence the noise levels at this location. South Street is
the primary source of noise impacting the site. South Street is a four-lane, undivided
street that carries commuter traffic morning and evening, and medium to light traffic at
other times of day. The speed limit at this location is 35 m.p.h. 300 feet to the west of
the site is the intersection of South Street with South Higuera Street, from which traffic
accelerates past the site. Opposite the site on South Street is a bus terminal with diesel-
engine busses arriving and departing on an infrequent schedule both day and night.
Beebee street, by comparison, is a quieter two-lane street that carries light traffic during
commuting hours. The data for the on-site noise survey are tabulated at the end of this
report.
The Ld„ value for the side of the site bordering South Street is Ld„ 673 dBA.
The L.do value for the side of the site bordering Beebee Street is Ld„ 62.4 dBA.
Discussion:
While the value of Ldo 673 along South Street is in the "Normally Unacceptable" range
of the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines on page 1.18 of the Noise Element, there are
noise mitigation measures that can be implemented by design, specification and
construction that will insure that all habitable spaces in this part of the proposed
development will have a maximum interior noise exposure of Ld„ 45, as required in the
Uniform Building Code.
noise analysis, page 2
The value of Ldo 62.4 along Beebee Street is at the lower end of the "Normally
Unacceptable" range in the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. Noise mitigation
measures can be implemented by design, specification and construction that will insure
that all habitable spaces in this part of the proposed development will have a maximum
interior noise exposure of Ldo 45.
Only the proposed apartment habitable spaces with roadway exposure are considered in
the following recommendations. It is expected that other, inward-facing exposures of the
proposed development will be in the "Normally Acceptable" range of exterior noisd; since
the residential construction at the perimeter will serve as a significant noise barrier for
the interior of the site.
Recommendations:
Noise Barrier
I recommend that exposure to noise along South Street be mitigated on site by a six
foot-high grouted masonry noise barrier wall, built as close as practicable to the source
of the noise, South Street. Additional landscape screening above the wall to visually
block the noise source will be of psychological benefit but will offer no real noise
reduction.
In addition, I recommend that the following specific noise mitigation measures be taken
in the design, specification and construction of the exterior walls of the apartments facing
South Street and Beebee Street.
Wall design and construction
To meet interior Ld„ 45 requirements, exterior wall construction for the apartments
facing South Street must have an S.T.C. (Sound Transmission Class) rating of 40 or
greater. This S.T.C. rating is achieved or exceeded in 2 x 4 stud wall construction with
wood siding, R-13 insulation, and interior 1/2" gypsum board on resilient channels.
noise analysis,page 3
� -33
The wall construction on the side of the apartments facing Beebee Street must have an
S.T.C..(Sound Transmission Class) rating of 38 or greater. This S.T.C. rating is achieved
or exceeded in 2 x 4 stud wall construction with wood siding, R-13 insulation, and
interior 1/2" gypsum board screwed directly to the studs; no resilient channel necessary.
The following recommendations are made with regard to the quality of construction
detailing- Critical to maintaining the noise reduction potential of the exterior wall design
is the detailing of construction and installation of doors and windows, soffit vents and
other openings on the South Street-side of the residences. That is to say, loose-fitting
construction of window and door frames and other wall penetrations will quickly degrade
the otherwise good noise reduction rating of any wall, and will result in unacceptable
interior noise levels. For instance, a hairline crack in a window / wall joint will degrade
the S.T.C. noise transmission rating of the wall construction by 6 decibels. A keyhole
will degrade a door S.T.C. noise transmission rating by 3 decibels, and so forth.
Other common noise leaks are medicine cabinets, electrical outlets, pipes, vents, ducts,
flues and other breaks in the integrity of the wall, ceiling or roof construction on the side
facing the noise source. It is imperative that all construction openings and joints on the
"noisy" exterior walls of the residences be insulated, sealed and caulked with resilient
caulking, particularly around doors and windows. All such openings and joints must be
airtight if the S.T.C. rating is to be maintained.
Mechanical Ventilation
On the South Street-side and Beebee Street-side of the site, the interior noise levels with
windows open will exceed the recommended 45 decibel levels for residential occupancies.
Therefore, in order to achieve quiet conditions, all operable windows and doors on the
north side of the residences must be shut. This will require mechanical ventilation to be
available in accordance with Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code.
noise anaWs, page 4
•3JIf
Where possible, mechanical ventilation fresh air intakes and exhaust vents and flues
should be located on the elevation of the residences away from the noise source.
However, if fresh air inlets or exhaust vents must be placed on the "noisy," street-side of
the site, noise baffling and sound attenuation duct lining should be incorporated in the
design of the ventilation system.
Window and door desimL specification and construction
The following recommendations are made with regard to the "noisy" north- and east-
facing elevations of the proposed development near to South Street and Beebee Street.
Sliding glass windows and doors must be constructed and certified by the manufacturer
for noise attenuation performance. Preferably, double-glazed glass doors should have
one layer of 1/4" laminated glass, with full perimeter gaskets, with. an S.T.C. performance
rating of 30 or better. Windows should be double-glazed, with one light of 1/4"
laminated glass, gasketed, with an S.T.C. rating of 35 or better.
References:
Appendix Chapter 35, "Sound Transmission Control" of the 1988 Uniform
Building Code, as amended.
Noise Element, City of San Luis Obispo. 1975.
Noise Element, Noise Contour Map. 1975.
NBS Building Science Series 77, Acoustical Performance of Exterior
Residential Walls, Doors and Windows.
California Department of Health Services, Catalog of STC and IIC Ratings
for Wall and Floor/Ceiling Assemblies. 1987.
noise analysis page 5
Sx - '-""'
- APPENDIX
Data and calculations
Noise measurements along South Street
August 31 - September 3, 1990
noise analysis for the proposed
Village Park Development
641 Higuera St.
San Luis Obispo, CA -
SOUTH STREET:
Measured DAY SPL 71 dBA' '
Measured DAY SPL 65 dBA' °
Measured DAY SPL 68 dBA' '
Measured DAY SPL 70 dBA* '
Measured DAY SPL 69 dBA' '
Measured NIGHT SPL 54 dBA' '
Measured NIGHT SPL 45 dBA' '
Measured NIGHT SPL 44 dBA*
Average 24hr SPL 60.8 dBA LEQ 24 hrs 67.0 dBA
Average Day SPL 68.6 dBA LEQ Day 69.0 dBA
Average Night SPL 47.7 dBA LEQ Night 50.1 dBA
Day Night Level = Ldn = 67.3 dBA
BEEBEE STREET.
Measured DAY SPL 67 dBA' °
Measured DAY SPL 62 dBA' '
Measured DAY SPL 62 dBA' '
Measured DAY SPL 64 dBA' '
Measured DAY SPL 63 dBA' '
Measured NIGHT SPL 48 dBA' '
Measured NIGHT SPL 44 dBA' '
Measured NIGHT SPL 43 dBA'
Average 24hr SPL 56.6 dBA LEQ 24 hrs 62.0 dBA
Average Day SPL 63.6 dBA LEQ Day 64.0 dBA
Average Night SPL 45.0 dBA LEQ Night 45.6 dBA
Day Night Level = I.,d„ = 62.4 dBA
noise analysis,page 6
� -36
Worst case sound isolation calculation:
Shell Isolation Rating (S.I.R.) Calculation
Village Park Development
2nd fl. unit 2b
description; member wall
component component
1 2
Area, ft. sq. 87.5 405
shell member comp Iwall window
component S.I.R. 1 34 24
component Trans. Coef£ 0.000398 '0.0039
comp. fractional area 10.683593 03164
member Trans.Coef£ 0.001531
member S.I.R. 28.1
air leak 3 ' 27.6 '<adj. S.I.R.
floor area, ft.sq. 139.9
member area/floor 10.914939
geometry correction 1 -1 26.6 <adj. S.I.R.
absorption corrections 1 0 26.6 <adj. S.I.R.
Exterior noise 67 dBA
Indoor intrusive level 40.4 dBA [Maintained Interior Sound Level]
criterion level 45 dBA
exceeded? no -4.6
noise analysis, page 7
wood siding
sheathing
2' x 4' stud 16' o.c.
R-13 batt insulation
resilient channel
S.T.C. 40 exterior wall 1/2' gypsum board
1/2' gypsum board x 2, screwed 12' o.c.
n 2' x 4' studs, 16' o.c.
U� staggered on 2' x 6' plate
3 1/2' thick sound attenuation batt
-� 1/2' gypsum board x 2, screwed 12' o.c.
S.T.C. 50 interior wall
�— 1/2' gypsum board x 2, screwed 12' o.c.
1 n double row of 2 x 4 studs, 16' o.c.
U� on separate plates 1' apart
3 1/2' thick sound attenuation batt
1/2' gypsum board x 2, screwed 12' o.c.
S.T.C. 63 interior wall
noise analysis,page 8
,5 - 38
Crawford -Multari & Starr_.
September 12, 1990
Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
P. O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Glen,
Enclosed is a copy of our conversion impact report prepared pursuant to
Government Code Section 65863.7 for the Village Park project at 145 South
Street. As you know, no mobilehome owner will be displaced by this project;
therefore, we have not specifically discussed replacement opportunities in other
mobilehome parks or relocation costs.
We will be giving this report to all the residents in the park shortly. We will do
this through door-to-door distribution to each coach by the on-site manager.
This is the usual method of distribution of park notices.
If you have any questions, please call. Thank you.
Sincerely,
7��/e
Mike Multari
Principal
Project Impact Report
Date: September 12, 1990
To: Residents of Village Park Mobilehome Park
From: Mike Multari, Crawford Multari& Starr
representing Village Park (VP)
Subject: Potential Impacts from the Proposed Condominium Project
and Mitigation Measures
As you may know,Village Park (VP) owns the Village Park Motel and Mobilehome Park.
It is their intent to remove the motel and use the half of the property facing South Street for
a condominium project. It is also their intent to retain the half of the property facing Bridge
Street as a mobilehome park-
The
arkThe purpose of this report is to let you know what the likely impacts of the project might
be,and for those of you who are affected by it, what steps are being taken to minimize
potential problems.
However, first and most importantly:
No person owning a mobilehome in the park will be forced to leave the
park as a result of this project.
1. Re-location of certain coaches within the park.
Some mobilehomes will need to be moved elsewhere in the park because of the
condominium project VP owns approximately 30 coaches in the park, and will remove
some of them if necessary to provide a comparable space for mobilehomes that need to be
moved VP agrees to the following for any coach that needs to be moved:
1)All expenses of the move will be paid for by VP; any structural damage resulting
from the move will be repaired by VP.
2)Persons will be able to choose among available spaces in order based on length
of residence in the park.
3) VP will give owners of coaches which need to be moved a chance to purchase a
condominium in the new project prior to sales on the open market. Owners of .
coaches may use their coaches toward the down payment on such purchase
(based on fair-market value).
(See also Dennis Moresco's letter to Daniel Puser who lives in space A60, and Mr. Puser's
response, which elaborate on these points.)
. - 40.
Village Park Report
Page 2 -
The mobilehomes which may need to be moved elsewhere in the park when the
condominium project is begun are in the following spaces:
A52, A56, A58, A59, A60, A61, A62, A63, A65, A67, B5, B10, C3
All these coaches will be guaranteed a new space in the park.
2. Other Mobilehome Owners.
Persons who own their coaches and who are in spaces other than those listed above will
not be directly affected by the project
However, VP will extend the same offer to owners of these coaches as made to those who
must be moved. prior to the condominiums being available for sale to the general public,
present tenants will be given an opportunity to purchase a new condominium in the project
and VP will accept their mobilehome (based on fair-market value) toward the down
payment on the condominium.
3. Persons renting coaches from Village Park.
Persons who currently rent a coach owned by VP are on month to month rental agreements
.and will be given at least 60 days notice if the coach they are living in needs to be moved.
If you have any questions,please feel free to give me a call at 541-3848.
VILLAGE PARK
641 Higuera Street,Suite 290
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 541-3848
June 6, 1990
Daniel Puser
Village Mobile Home Park
145 South Street, #A60
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Response to Memorandum to Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Dan:
This letter is to confirm our meeting of May 31, 1990. First of all, we reiterated
that no one owning a mobile home in the park will be forced to leave because of
this project. Spaces will be made available elsewhere in the park for those
mobile homes which will need to be moved. Then, the proposal section of your
memorandum to the city of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was
discussed, as follows:
1. The developers should provide a written agreement that they will pay
for all incurred expenses related to the moving of coaches, including
the cost of replacing damaged awnings, skirting, landscaping, and
structural damage to the coaches (even if the damage is detected up
to a year later).
We agreed, except that we would be liable for structural damage for a
period of thirty days and for leaks (should it rain again) for a period of
one year.
2. The developers should guarantee to the displaced owners their pick
of available spaces. The order in which the coach owners choose
should be based on years of tenancy in the park.
We agreed.
A08 004 /�h
Response to Memo. Im
June 6, 1990
Page 2
3. At the time the coaches need to be moved, the developers should
offer to buy the coaches at full, fair-market value. Since fair-market
value is partially determined by the selling price of other coaches in
the park, then the price should be determined by the cost of similar
coaches in other parks, regardless of the price of the coaches in this
park.
As you know, in December we asked each owner if they would like to
sell. Through that offer, we purchased approximately 40% of the
mobile homes and trailers in the park. Our position is that we must
have a successful project before we take on the task of purchasing
more mobile homes.
4. The developers should be required to submit a plan for improving the
park, along with the plans for redevelopment of the front half of the
property.
We explained that we did not intend to make significant changes to
the interior of the park, but that we do plan to put curb, gutter and
sidewalk on Beebee and Bridge Streets as well as put in a
landscaped entry on Bridge Street. We would also put a fence or wall
between the condominium project and the mobile home park with
some type of pedestrian access through to South Street. We would
make plans for those improvements available when they are
prepared, but that such plans would most likely not be done until later
in the development process.
5. As verbally promised, the developers should provide a written
guarantee to give the park tenants first rights-of-refusal to buy the new
condominiums. Perhaps as a sign of good faith, they could accept a
coach which needs to be moved in lieu of 20% down on the cost of
the condominium.
We agreed that at least 90 days prior to going public with a sales
program, we would extend an offer to all tenants in the park to
purchase condominium units. We will accept anyone's mobile home
at appraised value as part of the down payment for the purchase of a
condominium unit.
6. The park owners should be required to provide written notification to
park tenants of their plans and dates of Planning Commission or City
Council hearings.
A08 004
� - �3
Response to Memo. m -
June'6, 1990
Page 3
We agreed that tenants should be informed of future meetings; that
the City may be doing this kind of noticing in the future; and that, for
our part, we would do whatever is required by law.
Thank you very much for your time and concern regarding our project. I think
we agree that the project will enhance the overall residential quality of the
property, making it a better place to live and to own a coach. We are committed
to making the transition as comfortable as practical for owners of the coaches
remaining in the park. It was a pleasure meeting with you and we look forward
to your help in successfully completing our project.
Sincerely,
VIW.4G.E PARK
Dennis A. Moresco
Development Manager
DAM/tg
cc: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
AGS 004
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission, San Luis Obispo
From: Daniel Puser,
Village Mobile Home Park Resident
Date: 06/26/90
Re: Follow-up of 5/23/90 memo to the Planning Commission regarding the Village Park
Project
As you are probably aware of, I met with Mike Multari and Dennis Moresco to discuss the
concerns listed in my last memo to the Commission. Mike and Dennis were very open to
discussing solutions to my concerns. With the agreements we reached, the mobile home
owners should have little to worry about with the up-coming redevelopment.
Therefore, with these agreements in mind, I would like to see the Planning Commission
work through this project as quickly as possible. The sooner the redevelopment is finished,
the better off all of us in the park will be.
CC: M. Multari, D. Moresco
Villagclmmo/Pagc: l .
Crawford Multari & Starr
planning architecture • public poiicy
April 9, 1990
Arnold Jonas, Director
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Arnold,
Enclosed please find an application for the re-zoning of the Village Mobilehome Park and Motel
site (145 South Street). We originally applied for both a General Plan amendment and re-zoning
last fall. In January,the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the
General Plan amendment from Light Industrial to Medium High Density Residential. However,
they also indicated that they would not take action on the re-zoning request until they could also
review the proposed condominium project. A PD approach was recommended by the
Commission. Therefore, our current submission includes an application for a PD preliminary
development plan and for architectural review.
We continue to hope that the basic land use question, that is, the General Plan amendment, can
continue on to::Ie City Council for their determination. In the meantime, we have assembled the
materials for a re-submission of the zoning in accordance with the Commission's preference. We
are proposing R-3-PD for the half of the site fronting South Street. This will be used for the
condominium prc;ect. We are proposing R-3-S for the half of the site facing Bridge Street, which
will be essentially unchanged and will continue to be used as a mobile home park.
As explained in the attachments, our approach ensures that no current owners of mobile homes
in the park will be :nvoluntarily displaced. All such mobile home owners will be provided a space on
site in the park.
The use of the ucnt of the site for condominiums will eliminate a non-conforming motel use (as
well as the non-conforming sign) and will facilitate the widening of South Street.
We think the design of the project is sensitive and attractive;the use of semi-subterranean
parking helps maximize on-site open space.
If you need ruither information, please let us know. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael Multari
Village Park Rezoning Request
Zoning Map
Change from M
to R-3-PD (lots 1 and 2)
to R-3-S (lots 3 and 4)
,I C/OS-20
i R-1-PD
-3
D � -2-P0
..
CAS-2 � -
—�P _abs-s g EJ� PF
R-3-P R 4-SP
M S- M f
1 r -
R-3-S P:) � s
C/OS- 40-SP
y � 5
' �Icl
i ,5 5-40-5
Village Park
Re-zoning Request
Application for Rezoning for the Village Motel and
Mobile Home Park Property (145 South Street)
Requested Change
Change the Zoning
1) From M to R-3-PD for the half of the site which fronts on South Street and which will be
used for condominiums (lots 1 and 2, Block 153, Harfords Addition)
2) From M to R-3-S for the half of the site which fronts on Bridge Street and which will
continue to be a mobile home park (lots 3 and 4).
Intent
The property-owners,Village Park, own approximately 35 of the 75 mobile homes on the
property. The intent of the project is to use the half of the site facing South Street for 43
condominiums. The existing 27 unit motel'and managers residence will be eliminated. Existing
mobile homes on this portion of the property will moved.
Most of the mobile homes which are owned by Village Park will be sold and moved off-site. Any
mobile home not owned by Village Park, and which is located on the portion of the site to be used
for condominiums,will be moved (at Village Park's expense)to another comparable space on the
portion of the site which will remain as a mobile home park. No owner of a mobile home in the park
will be forced to move off-site.
Existing Conditions
The entire site is approximately 5.6 acres, located on the southwest corner of South and Beebee
Streets. The site is presently occupied by the Village Motel and Trailer Park. The motel consists
of 27 units and a managers residence;there are 75 mobilehome spaces on the site as well.
Nearby uses include the following:
To the west, the newly constructed Pacific Coast Center, a water conditioning shop and
tire shop. .
To the north, across South Street: a restaurant, bus station and cycle shop with
residences behind.
To the east, across Beebee: an old single family residence and barn;offices of Blake
Printery and related businesses.
To the south, across Woodbridge: the storage yard for Bailey Bridges, a largely vacant lot
with the cemetery behind.
Multi-family residences exist farther to the east on South, beginning at Beebee on the north side
(R-2) and just before Exposition on the south side (R-4).
Crawford Multari & Starr planning architecture • public polity
f
�� —70
Village Park
Re-zoning Requ#
Rationale
The property is currently used as a motel and mobile home park and has been for several
decades. Neither use conforms with the existing general plan or zoning. On January 10, 1990,
the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the general plan designation for
this site be changed from light-industrial to medium-high density residential. (As of this writing,
the Commission's recommendation has not yet been forwarded to the City Council.)
The Planning Commission, however, did not act on a concurrent application for a re-zoning M to
R-3 or R-3-S. The Commission, somewhat uncharacteristically, indicated that they wanted to see
the condominium project at the same time that they made a recommendation on the zoning.
Thus,Village Park is submitting this application: R-3-S for the portion of the property which will
remain as a mobile home park, and R-3-PD for the portion to be used for the condominium project.
The requested changes would allow the existing mobile home park to become a conforming use
and would eliminate the non-conforming motel replacing it with additional housing units.
The existing General Plan, in both the Land Use and Housing Elements, calls for more housing in
locations near the city's developed center. The draft LUE map and the concept Airport Area
Specific Plan include large areas for service commercial and light industrial activities near the
airport where housing is not an acceptable use. The draft LUE update recommends that existing
M and CS properties near the city's center may be appropriate for redesignation to allow multi-
family housing.
The location is a good one for medium-high density housing; multi-family housing already exists
nearby in this part of the city. The site is near parks, services, and employment centers on South
and Higuera Streets and in downtown. Nearby uses are acceptably compatible with the existing
and proposed housing.
The mobile home park has co-existed with non-residential uses nearby for several decades. The
re-zoning will not exacerbate this relationship.
The continued provision of higher density, relatively modest cost housing proximate to services
and employment opportunities results in many of the advantages of "mixed use"developments.
The Circulation Element shows South Street in this location.as an arterial. Redesignating this
property for residential uses will facilitate removal of the motel and the widening and improvement
of South Street here. In this proposal, driveways on South Street would be eliminated and
access is limited to Beebee Street. Participation in the expected signalization of Beebee and
South would be likely as well.
The change in designation should not have any significant impact on the amount of traffic
generated from the site;the property already includes 76 residences and 28 motel units. The
new re-zoning/project would result in approximately 90 residential units, total, on site.
The proposal provides additional residential units relatively close to downtown which is prefered
from a circulation system standpoint because non-auto travel is easier from the residences to the
core of employment and services.
Summary of How Proposal Helps Carry Out Intent of the General Plan
Removes the M zone from property where new industrial development would be
inappropriate considering alternative locations and other nearby urban uses today. The
Crawford Multarl & Starr planning - architecture - public policy
2
Village Park
Re-zoning Requt..i
Commission concurred with the basic change to the land use designation when they
recommended a General Plan amendment in January.
sign). - Biminates the non-conforming tourist commercial use (including the non-conforming
-Allows for the long-term use of this site, relatively near downtown, for residential uses.
-Preserves the majority of the existing mobile home park. Our approach ensures that no
existing owner of a mobile home will be displaced;all such owners will be provided a space on site.
- Provides for more multi-family housing, near the existing city center, relatively close to
jobs, services and transit;such housing because of the location and density will tend to be more
modestly priced than most new construction in the city.
- Facilitates the timely widening and improvement of South Street.
Crawford Multari & Starr planning - architecture - public policy
3
-So
Village Park
Re-zoning RequL
Planned Development Rezoning
Preliminary Development Plan
A. Legal Description: See plans.
B. Statement of Obiections
The use of a Planned Development rezoning was not the preferred approach of the applicant.
Village Park originally requested a re-zoning to R-3 (or R-3-S) at the same time as the general plan
amendment application. The Planning Commission, however, indicated that they would prefer to
take an.action on the re-zoning request at the same time that they reviewed the proposed
condominium project. The PD was cited as the way to do this.
Thus, Village Park is submitting a PD re-zone for the portion of the site to be used for the
condominium project. This will allow the Commission to see the actual project,concurrently with
the change in zoning from M (light industrial) to R-3 (medium high density residential). We are
requesting that the portion of the site which is not being modified (it will remain a mobile home
park) be re-zoned to R-3 (or R-3-S) (see page 1,above).
C. Schedule
Village Park hopes to get City approval for the PD this spring and to apply for building permits in
the fall. Construction should take place late 1990 to be completed in 1991.
D. Future cal /l a of the progertv
Village Park's intent at this time is to develop the condominium project as soon as possible and, of
course, to sell the individual units there. Village Park intends, at this time,to continue to own and
operate the mobile home park portion of the site.
E. Proie t summary, See plans.
F. Portions of the development which would otherwise ne dx tion.
The project does involve two exception requests: a fence height exception to allow a six-foot
high wall in the street yard setback on South Street and yard exceptions for certain projecting
decks along South and Beebee Streets and along the west and south boundaries.
The purpose of the fence height exception is to help provide additional security and privacy for
the project The site is in a mixed use area of the City;South Street is a relatively busy arterial. A
solid fence around the project will help mitigate any potential problems related to privacy and
security. Furthermore,there is approximately 18 feet from the curb to the property line (even after
the street widening). Thus, even with an adequate sidewalk, there will be a generous area
available for landscaping between the sidewalk and the property line.
Crawford Multarl & Starr planning - architecture - public policy
4
Village Park
Re-zoning Requt:.i
The purpose of the yard exceptions for the deck is simply to allow more usable open space in the
project M evaluation of the streetscape and surrounding uses suggests that such an exception
will not substantially affect the aesthetics of the appearance of the site or the streets, and will
materially enhance the quality of the new homes.
G. SiteIo an and related information. See plans.
H.Macent Ljses See plans and summary in re-zoning statement.
Crawford Multari & Stari planning - architecture • public policy
5 }
P .C. Minutes
January 10 , 1990
Page 3.
Russell Bunge , 877 Nipom , was concerned about the C-C rezoning and the
possible heavy commercia use in a residential area. He preferred the P-F
zone designation and felt parking considerations needed to be addressed.
Chairperson Duerk closed the public hearing.
Commrs. Hoffman and Karl skint were concerned about the parking
requirements for the the tre.
Commr . Crotser felt a mo a comprehensive plan for the downtown was
necessary and felt this as a piece-meal approach, although he supported
the theatre use.
Commr. Schmidt felt the oning should be P-F with an S overlay and that
non-profit theatres shou d be allowed through a zoning text change. He did
not support the expansio of the C-C zone in this area .
Chairperson Duerk agreed with Commr. Schmidt.
Commr. Schmidt moved to ecommend that council deny the C-C-H'-S zoning
request and approve a P -H-S zone designation with text amendment to allow
non-profit theatres in the PF zone. .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Schmidt, Duerk , Crotser, Hoffman and Karleskint .
NOES - None.
ABSENT - Comm Kourakis.
The motion passes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 4. Public Hearing: General Plan Amendment & Rezoning GP/R 1468 .
Consideration of amending the Land Use Element map and_ zoning map
to change the designations from service-commercial/light
industrial (M) to medium-high density residential (R-3) ; 145 South
Street ; Village Park, applicant .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
)ave Moran presented the staff report and recommended the commission
recommend to council that the amendments be approved .
-ommr . Schmidt was concerned with the high density and displacement of
nobile home residents .
"hairperson Duerk opened the public hearing.
4ike Multari, 641 Higuera, applicant ' s representative , discussed the
request and the elimination of the non-conforming status. He felt the
notel was inappropriate in this location. He discussed the demolition of
the motel and stated that approximately 2/3 of the mobile homes would be
retained, so those residents would not be displaced.
P .C. Minutes
January 109 1990
Pa-- 4.
He -7elt the area was virtually R-3 presently and did not agree with a
reduction in density. He felt. the request supported the jobs/housing
balance concept and agreed to including an S overlay .
Fred Hamblin, 1767 Conejo, was concerned with his business ' heavy
commercial use at 201 Bridge Street and did not feel it was compatible with
residential uses. However, he noted that no mobile home residents have
complained about this mixed use.
Kirk Spiegel, 1411 Palm, was also concerned about his neighboring
industrial property in terms of potential incompatibility with residential
uses . He felt the CC&R ' s for the present and future residential uses.
should add4ess alert people to possible use conflict of noise and traffic.
Rob Strong, 1 Buena Vista, supported the proposal and felt there could be
compatibility with residents ' acknowledgement of the situation and
supported mixed use developments.
Chairperson Duerk closed the public hearing.
Commr. Schmidt was concerned with "spot zoning" and felt the residential
use would be isolated in a light industrial area.
Commr. Hoffman felt the area should be rezoned to conform with the existing
1 use .
Commr. Karleskint was concerned about introducing residential traffic to a
heavily impacted area. He noted that the lack of compatibility seemed to
be acceptable to present residents.
Commr. Crotser agreed with Commr. Karleskint.
Commr . Schmidt suggested the applicant submit a PD. The applicant withdrew
the rezoning request.
Commr . Crotser moved to recommend that council change the General Plan Land
Jse Element map from service-commercial/light industry to medium-high
density residential .
-ommr. Hoffman seconded the motion.
:ommr. Schmidt felt the issues of compatibility and possible displacement
of low-income residents were increased through a straight rezoning .
✓OTING: AYES - Commrs. Crotser, Hoffman, Karleskint and Duerk .
NOES - Commr. Schmidt.
ABSENT - Commr . Kourakis.
The motion passes.
MINUTES - CrFY PLANNING COMMISSION
City of San Luis Obispo, California
December 12, 1990 Regular Meeting
3. Planned Development Rezoning PD 1483. Consideration of preliminary
development plan to allow a 43-unit residential condominium and 43-space mobile
home park; 145 South Street; R-3-PD zone pending; Village Park Associates
(William Dermody), applicant.
Judith Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
commission recommend to the City Council that the entire site be rezoned from
manufacturing (M) to medium-high density residential, planned development (R-3-PD)
and that the preliminary development plan be approved with findings and conditions,
which would require further redesign.
Commr. Kourakis indicated that a letter had been received from Bailey Bridges which
expressed its concern with truck traffic and another letter was received from Marshall
Ochylski, that was concerned with traffic on Beebee, South, Bridge, and Higuera Streets.
Judith Latimer indicated it was a conclusion of the traffic study that traffic would not be
a significant problem and that mitigation measures proposed should take care of some
of the issues.
Chairman Hoffman declared the public hearing open.
Michael Multari, 641 Higuera Street, representative, noted that a planned development
for the southern part of the property was not requested. He indicated that a number
of possibilities for that site have been discussed but noted there was no intent at this
time to eliminate the mobile home park, which he preferred to be zoned R-3 for now.
He stated that the traffic that will be produced by this project is expected to be less
than current traffic because the number of units proposed is fewer than existing. He
questioned why the Fire Department would impose a condition on an off-site intersection.
However, he indicated they agreed not to protest the condition if the expense was 50
percent of the cost, not to exceed $3000. He indicated the R-3 zoning would make the
existing residences and mobile home park conforming, it provides more housing, it will
correct problems with the South Street frontage, and that the new units will be more
modestly priced than typical condominiums that are newly built. He noted that none of
the mobile home owners will be displaced and that the new condominiums will be
offered first to residents of the park. .Residents will be able to use their existing units
as a down payment for the new condominium units. He indicated previous commission
concerns were with the security wall around the building and the commission's preference
for a reduction of units and an increase of parking. He noted the applicant's preference
was to have a security wall, mostly 6-feet in height. He also noted that it was not the
7 SS
P.C. Minutes
December 12, 1990
Page 2
applicant's preference to increase the parking by reducing the unit size or open space.
He asked that the project be approved as submitted. Mr. Multari indicated the
applicants would be willing to agree to retain the existing mobile home park use to
remain on the site for ten to fifteen years.
Chairman Hoffman declared the public bearing closed.
Commr. Gurnee indicated he was concerned with previous direction by the commission
to reduce the dwelling units by two and require 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. He
indicated that while he understood it was commission policy to require additional parking
for condominiums, he felt there was no basis in this case, and it resulted in open space
being reduced. He thought the project design was excellent and supported the project
and rezoning if revisions were made to the recommended findings and conditions and
with an additional condition that the existing mobile home park would remain for a
period of ten years.
The commission discussed amendments to recommended findings and conditions.
Commr. Karleskint was concerned with the removal of all the plants. He felt it may be
possible to create the islands around some trees and use wells for them. He wanted a
study done to see if any of the trees could be saved without redesigning the project.
Commr. Gurnee moved to recommend to the City Council approval of Planned
Development Rezoning PD 1483 subject to the following findings, exceptions, and
conditions:
Findings.
1. The planned development will provide facilities and amenities suited to more
affordable housing than conventional development.
2. The planned development is consistent with the general plan, as amended, and
meets zoning ordinance requirements, except as specifically described below.
3. An initial environmental study has been prepared and recommended mitigation
measures are included in conditions of project approval.
Exceptions:
1. A yard exception for decks along South Street and Beebee Street, as shown in the
preliminary development plan, is hereby granted, provided that no deck shall
extend closer than 4 feet to any street property line.
2. A maximum building height of 37 feet is approved.
P.C. Minutes
December 12, 1996
Page 3
3. A yard exception for two parking spaces facing South Street, as shown in the
preliminary development plan, is hereby granted.
Conditions:
1. Any wall along South Street shall include a gap for pedestrian access near the
northwest comer of the site.
2. Any barrier along the south boundary of the condominium site shall consist of a
fence, with design subject to approval by the Architectural Review Commission,
rather than a wall. Any fence shall include a gap or gate for pedestrian access
near the southwest comer of the site.
3. Final development plan shall show details of motorcycle parking spaces and bicycle
parking spaces to the approval of the Community Development Department. The
numbers of such spaces shall be as required by code, based on the required
vehicle parking spaces. At least ten bicycle lockers shall be provided.
4. Prior to occupancy, developer shall pay to the city a share of the cost of installing
a Fire Department-actuated traffic signal controller for the intersection of South
Street and 1 iguera Street to the approval of the Fire Department. Such
controller must be installed prior to occupancy.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall provide to the city Fire
Department an assessment of soil and groundwater contamination for the entire
site. The extent of the investigation, the form of the report, and any required
decontamination shall be subject to approval by the city Fire Department.
6. Owner shall dedicate to the city right-of-way for the widening of South Street, and
shall improve the frontages of South Street, Beebee Street, and Bridge Street, with
roadway paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees, all to the approval of the
City Engineer.
7. Applicant shall submit a final development plan covering the entire property, from
South Street to Bridge Street, including all proposed changes and improvements
for the mobile home park area to remain. Final development plan shall be
subject to approval by the Planning Commission, and such plan shall be
accompanied by a recorded instrument agreeing to retain the mobile home site
as a mobile home park for no less than fifteen years. Said development plan shall
attempt to preserve as much of the on-site vegetation as possible.
Commr. Schmidt seconded the motion.
RECEIVED
DEC 1290 LMDPLANS
Crtyo1San Luis 0b,spo LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CommunityDeve�opment LAND/SITE PLANNING
December 11, 1990 75 Higuera Street, Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Community Development Department (805) 544-4546
City of San Luis Obispo FAX (805) 544-4594
990 Palm Street Marshall E. Ochylski, C1862
P.O. Box 8100 Principal
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Attention: Glen Matteson
Subject: Village Park
San Luis Obispo, California
The owners of the adjacent Pacific Coast Center would like to express their
concern regarding the traffic impacts of the Village Park Development Plan.
The existing access to the parcel is solely from South Street, while the pro-
posed project has access from both Beebee and Bridge Streets. Since it is
difficult to make a left turn onto South Street from Beebee, it seems that a ma-
jority of traffic from both portions of this project will chose Bridge Street as their
primary access. The addition of this number of trips to Bridge Street could
have a significant negative impact on traffic movement in the area.
As a condition of our development review process, we were required to pre-
pare a traffic study, including the intersections at Madonna/Higuera,
South/Higuera, Bridge/Higuera and Beebee/South. In order to mitigate the
impacts identified, we were required to construct the Bridge Street improve-
ments from Higuera to Beebee and participate in the costs of re-signalizing
the intersections at Madonna/Higuera and South/Higuera.
Given this background, we believe that a thorough analysis of the traffic im-
pacts of the Village Park on the area should be completed and appropriate
mitigation measures be incorporated as Conditions of Approval.
Sincerely,
Marshall E. Ochylski, C1862
Principal
MEO/cx
cc: Told Corporation
i -s9
P.C. Minutes
December 12, 1990
Page 4
Commr. Kourakis indicated she could not support Exception 1 or anything else that
would allow a 6-foot wall on South Street. She was also concerned with the condition
retaining the mobile home park use on site and whether it could be enforced.
Commr. Hoffman indicated he also could not support the 6-foot wall on the South Street
property line.
AYES: Gurnee, Schmidt, Karleskint, Peterson
NOES: Kourakis, Hoffman
ABSENT: None
The motion passes.
.� • ' cSp
MEETtai� _ AG81DA
• DATE '`� ITE�1;1
Crawford Multari & Starr
planning • architecture • public policy C'(I TO-
❑� Asim, FYI
February 20, 1991 0 CAO ❑ �M.ML
ACRO ❑ MECHM
FW DM
Honorable Mayor and City Council XTMPMY El�wciowc. ❑ PMKIM�cx
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ MCMT.TEAM ❑ RECDIR
P.O. Box 8100 O,C�MnFu.E
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Q
Dear Mayor Dunin and Council Members,
On .March 5, you are scheduled to hear a request by Village Park, who I
represent, for a general plan amendment and PD zone change for the motel
and mobilehome park on South Street. Our request is to change the
designation of this area from industrial to residential. This would make the
existing mobilehome park a conforming use.
As part of the PD, we are also proposing to remove the old motel and some of
the mobilehomes and trailers, and replace them with a new condominium
project. We emphasize that no one who owns a mobilehome will need to be
moved from the park...every mobilehome owner who wishes to stay will be
accommodated in the new project. Some mobilehomes will need to be
relocated within the park. That will be done entirely at our expense.
Furthermore, we have agreed to let mobilehome owners have an opportunity to
purchase one of the new condominiums prior to their sale on the open market
and we will accept their mobilehome, at its fair market value, towards the down
payment of the new condominium.
The project does not displace existing mobilehome owners, improves the
environment of the existing park, removes a non-conforming and unsightly
commercial use, allows South Street to be widened and provides more housing
for the City. This new housing helps promote the concept of "mixed use" by
providing residences near officeand job opportunities, near neighborhood
shopping, near parks and near public transit corridors. And, while the project
will probably not meet the strict definition of low- or moderate-income housing, it
will by nature of its location and density, be more affordable than most new
construction in the City.
In December, the Planning Commission recommended approval of our
proposal. We appreciated their support. Some of their recommended
conditions will improve the project; others we disagree with but are willing to
accept. There are, however, two conditions we would like you to reconsider.
Restrictions on further change in use. The Planning Commission recommends
that we record an instrument retaining the mobilehome park on the back portion
„pf�h * f least 15 years. The intent of this condition was to keep this
t96
MAR 1 1441
CITY CLERK
SAN LUI$Q@ISPq,CA
641 Higuera St., Suite 202 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 541.3848 • Fax (805) 541-9260
• f
City Council
South Street
portion of the affordable housing stock for a reasonable amount of time. We can
accept this condition if you agree that it is the best approach.
However, we think that an alternative approach may be better. When we
announced in the park that we would buy mobilehomes, we were overwhelmed
by the response. In fact, we had to tell several people in the park that we could
not purchase their units at this time. The reason for this response by the
mobilehome owners is simple. The mobilehomes themselves have virtually no
value outside the park. Many are old. The park, especially in its current state, is
not one of the more attractive ones. Thus, selling units has been difficult. A
ready buyer willing to purchase the mobilehomes at a fair price was a true boon
to the mobilehome owners.
We believe that several other owners would like to sell their units; we would like
to purchase them, but only if we can build more condominiums within a
reasonable amount of time.
Thus, we would suggest that we be allowed to convert not more than one half of
the remaining site not sooner than five years, and the remaining half not sooner
than 10 years. We prefer this phased conversion option, and we think the
mobilehome owners would to, rather than a blanket 15 year restriction. In any
case, we would not force mobilehome owners to move, but would buy the units
as they came on the market over time.
Yard exception for a portion of the wall. Secondly, we would like to be granted
a yard exception for a six foot high fence or wall along a portion of South Street
and Beebee Street. In general, we can meet the setbacks on the site for the
wall. However, in some places, we asked for some relief. The Planning
Commission did not approve the yard exception for this feature.
In general, we agree with the philosophy that new residential projects should
not be walled but rather integrated into the surrounding neighborhood.
However, in some cases, such as this, an exception makes sense.
The benefits of the wall are increased security and privacy and noise protection
for outdoor common areas. Although the site provides many of the benefits of a
mixed-use location, it also suffers some of the impacts of this approach as well.
Most adjacent uses are not residential. South Street is a busy roadway, and its
character tends to become more commercial, rather than a residential
neighborhood, closer to Higuera. We do not think these impacts are so
significant that residences are not a good use of the site. As a matter of fact it
has been residential for several decades. Rather, we think that these conditions
warrant some special design features, notably a wall or fence along South
Street and Beebee Street, to improve the "livability" of the project.
We believe strongly that the increased privacy of a wall or fence along South
Street is critical to the success of the project. The wall was also endorsed by
the current residents of the mobilehome park who testified at the Planning
Crawford vlultarl & Starr planning • architecture • public policy
2
Suggested Revisions to the exceptions and conditions as recommended by the
Planning Commission:
Exceptions.
add the following:
4. A yard exception for a wall along South Street and Beebee Street is granted;
location and design of said wall shall generally conform with the attached
exhibit, and shall include the bus turn-out and covered bus stop. Final design
shall be subject to architectural review.
Conditions.
modify #7 as follows:
7. Applicant shall submit a final development plan covering the entire property,
from South Street to Bridge Street, including all proposed changes to
improvements for the mobile home park area to remain. Final development
plan shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission, and such plan
shall be accompanied by a recorded instrument agreeing to retain lot 3 of block
153f Harford's Addition as a mobile home park for not less than five years and
lot 4 of the same block and tract as a mobile home park for not less than 10
years. Said development plan shall attempt to preserve as much of the on-site
vegetation as possible.
City Council
South Street
Commission hearings, for the same reason: they would like the privacy and
security of a solid fence in this part of town.
Attached is an idea for the wall/setback on South Street. Note, that we have
offered to dedicate more area to accommodate a bus turn-out and covered bus
stop near the pedestrian access into the project. We think that the wall can be
designed with enough landscaping, variable setbacks and amenities, such as
the bus stop, to allow for visual integration with the streetscape in this portion of
town.
Attached are suggested changes to the exceptions and conditions of approval
recommended by the Planning Commission. We know you will fairly consider
them and, we hope, you will incorporate them into the approval of the
application.
If you have questions or need further information, please let me know.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Multari
cc: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Crawford Multari & Starr planning • architecture • public policy
3
i \
1�
I
-- o
� a
e
e o�
= 3d
O �iU3{
I
y
y
d�
W
. MAW
1 �J
I
ee
A
N N
_N 7
.Q A
M
3
o
c
b
� A
N
' w
7
n
d
o
Lp� a •O
Sp m
T c X
♦� y
o G
o
x
rt
CD
m O S
E a
7 p E
00 d g
d
@ O
4 � •
i
m
a �N
b A
d
a
d'
x