The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/07/1993, 1 - GP/R 109-93 - REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUMDENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1250 IRIS STREET AND 1615 FAIRVIEW STREET AND REZONE THE SAME PROPERTIES FROM R-2-S TO O-S, AND REZONE THE UNDEVELOP �NH�{XI►►I�IIIII�IIII III MEETING DATE: III I►i=�ll�� city or san suis oBIspo -2 ", V.- COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TEM NUMBER: FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director;�� By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner fK SUBJECT: GP/R 109-93 - Request to amend the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Office for properties located at 1250 Iris Street and 1615 Fairview Street and rezone the same properties from R-2-S to O-S, and rezone the undeveloped property to the west of French Hospital from O-PD to O-S. CAO RECOMMENDATION: A- Adopt a Resolution amending the Land Use Element Map designation from Medium-Density Residential to Office for properties located at 1250 Iris Street and 1615 Fairview Street, based on findings; and B. Introduce an Ordinance to print amending the Zoning Map from R-2-S to O-S for properties located at 1250 Iris Street and 1615 Fairview Street, and from O-PD to O-S for property located to the west of the hospital, based on findings. DISCUSSION Background- Project Description A master plan for the development of the French Hospital "campus" has been submitted by Summit Health, the same corporation that owns the hospital. The word campus is used to describe the existing hospital property, the property developed with the Pacific Medical Plaza office building directly to the south of the hospital, and undeveloped properties to the west, north and southwest that are owned by Summit Health. Further development of the campus properties are proposed in phases. Phase I calls for the development of Building E, a 30,000 square-foot medical office building, on property located just south of the existing Pacific Medical Plaza. The applicant for this new building is Cambridge Healthcare Development Corporation. This phase also includes the development of additional parking on currently undeveloped property to the west of the hospital (presently zoned O-PD and R-2-S). Phase IA, which includes the reconfiguration of parking areas near the site's Lizzie Street entry and behind the hospital, would be developed concurrently with the Phase I medical office building and improvements. Phase II involves the development of future buildings and facilities. Building A, located to the north off of Fairview Street, would house some type of office use associated with the hospital, but not necessarily doctors' offices (this site is currently zoned R-2-S). Building B, located just north of the hospital, is proposed as a three-story, 35,000 square-foot medical office building. Building C, proposed near the front entry of the hospital, would be a 6,000 square-foot addition to the hospital as an obstetrics/gynecology center. The �►►H�t ►�ui(III�Iip ��pl city of San LUIS OBISpo aiis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT GF/K 109-93 i Page 2 obstetrics/gynecology center would be built first(1994-5); other planned buildings would not be constructed for at least another five years. Previous Review On November 10, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the above general plan amendment and rezoning requests along with a Planning Commission use permit to adopt a hospital campus master plan and enable Phase I development (Building E and associated parking). The Commission took four separate actions on various project components. Commissioner Sigurdson stepped down due to a conflict of interest. The vote, recommending that the Council support the general plan amendment/rezoning for 1250 Iris Street, was 5-1 (Cross voting no), and the vote, making the same recommendation for the property at 1615 Fairview Street, was 4-2 (Cross and Karleskint dissenting). The vote recommending approval of the request to rezone the property to the west of the hospital from O-PD to O-S was 6-0. The Commission voted 6-0 to approve the use permit with some changes to conditions (Planning Commission's action with amended conditions is reflected in the attached follow-up letter). There was no public testimony from the neighborhood at the meeting. The Commission expressed concerns with the amount of site area devoted to parking .and discussed the possibility of constructing a parking structure. The applicant explained that the cost and the topography of the site ruled out a parking structure as an option. Another topic of discussion was the best use for the property at 1615 Fairview Street and the related concerns with its development. Although staff had recommended against approval of the proposed land use change for the Fairview Street property, because of policy and traffic issues and its detachment from the rest of the hospital's facilities (discussed at length in attached staff report), the Commission supported the request. The Commission supported the land use change on the basis that traffic generated by office development would be similar to residential uses, that ancillary uses related to the hospital were appropriate here and that the site's suitability for residential uses was questionable. 1615 Fairview Street Issues With future development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street, there would be vehicular access provided between the hospital and Fairview/Breck Streets. This issue has been the foremost one in terms of concerns with policy consistency and change to neighborhood character. Current general plan policies: indicate that commercial traffic should avoid using local residential streets; favor the retention of residential sites over conversion to commercial uses;and require the City to carefully review requests to convert residential uses to office uses for neighborhood compatibility. /-o ��►►►�u►INIIIIIIi�' II�IN city of San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT GP/R 109-93 Page 3 Beyond the policy consistency questions with the land use change, there has been extensive discussion between the applicant and the City over the expectations for how the vehicular access would be developed. The Public Works Department has requested that the access be developed to public street standards, while the applicant wants to install a driveway as shown on plans. The Planning Commission indicated support for the driveway as shown on plans. The Public Works Department.has requested development of the access to public street standards to help improve neighborhood circulation and to reduce potential adverse traffic impacts at the Breck Street/Johnson Avenue intersection associated with the proposed land use change and site development. The Public Works Department endorses the development of a 30-foot wide street with 6- foot wide sidewalk on the southerly side only. The specific requirements for development of the driveway or street would become a condition of the future use permit that will be required for development of the Fairview property. While the Council may not condition the rezoning of the property to install the driveway to street standards, the Council may want to go on record through the minutes for their preference at this time. Another alternative would be to add a mitigation measure to those included on Page 11 of Initial Study ER 109-93 which states: ■ With development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street, vehicular access between Fairview/Breck Street and the main portion of the French Hospital property shall be developed as a [driveway as shown on the hospital master plans dated 10-29-93] or to [street standards as determined by the City Engineer]. Mitigation Measure No. 5 The Commission, in their motion to approve the use permit, directed staff to add language to Mitigation Measure No. 5. of Initial Study ER 109-93, to allow for the hospital to be reimbursed by future development in the vicinity for the cost of the traffic signal installation at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street, as follows: The applicant shall deposit a letter of credit with the City for the cost of the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street. The letter of credit shall be held for a period of up to five years from complete campus build-out. The applicant shall provide annual reports to the City Engineer, prepared by a Civil Engineer or Traffic Engineer, during the time that the letter of credit is held, evaluating the need for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street. The traffic signal shall be designed to include an emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) and interconnect with the intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. The City will establish an agreement with the applicant for 3 �m�►�i�►IpIIIIIIIIIP°��ll$ city of San LUIS OBISp0 Gis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT uVIR 109-93 i Page 4 reimbursement for the cost of the signal installation, based on contributing developments in the area over the next 15 years, in -accordance with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.44.090. City staff supports including this additional provision in Mitigation Measure No.5. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the Resolution, included as Attachment 3, denying the request(s) based on inconsistency with the City's General Plan. 2. Continue with direction to the staff and applicant if the Council desires further information or analysis to render a decision. Attached: Attachment 1: Resolution approving the LUE map amendments Attachment 2: Ordinance approving the rezonings Attachment 3: Resolution denying the project Attachment 4: Planning Commission follow-up letter Attachment 5: Reduced copy of site plan Attachment 6: Summary of Issues Attachment 7: Draft 11-10-93 Planning Commission Minutes (Forthcoming) Attachment 8: Planning Commission Staff Report AT, ,CHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. (1993 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT (LUE) MAP FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1250 IRIS STREET AND 1615 FAIRVIEW STREET WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings on these amendments in accordance with the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the amendments come to the council upon the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the changes have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council adopted the initial study of environmental impact (ER 109-93), incorporating the mitigation measures shown on the attached Exhibit A into the project. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the amendments and staff's analysis, the Planning Commission's recommendation, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1250 Iris Street 1. The proposed general plan amendment for the property at 1250 Iris Street will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because the site is naturally separated and buffered from the rest of the neighborhood by the creek area and the vegetation along it. �-s City Council Resolution No. (1993 Series) GP/R 109-93 Page 2 2. The proposed general plan amendment for the property at 1250 Iris Street is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, given the limitation on access from the site to Iris Street will prevent traffic impacts to the adjacent neighborhood, and the loss in residential development potential is insignificant when considered from a citywide perspective. 3. The proposed development of the site at 1250 Iris Street as parking is appropriate since it is physically integrated with other hospital facilities and will be compatible with surrounding land uses with the proposed landscaped treatment of the street frontage. 1615-Fairview Street 4. The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan because commercial traffic introduced into the Breck/Fairview Street residential neighborhood will be insignificant. This determination can be made because of the project's proposed internal connection from Fairview/Breck Street to the signalized intersection of Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. Most vehicles will find that the signalized intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street will be more direct and easier to access than the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Breck Street. Therefore, access to the site can be viewed as being from an arterial street, rather than a residential street. 5. The proposed development of the site with a hospital-related use is appropriate since the proposed driveway connection from the developed portion of the property to this site will physically integrate it with other hospital facilities and it will be compatible with surrounding land uses. Both Sites 6. The proposed "S", Special Consideration Overlay Zoning, will address the unique concerns with development of these sites which are: ■ Types and sizes of medical-related uses established at the site are consistent with general plan policies and are logically related to the hospital master plan; ■ City noise standards are satisfied; ■ Traffic impacts are mitigated and safe on-site circulation, as well as safe access to the site are provided; and City Council Resolution No. (1993 Series) GP/R 109-93 Page 3 ■ Open space is preserved. 7. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on October 28, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached Exhibit A being incorporated into the project, and the City Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and. finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. SECTION 3. Adoption 1. The Land Use Element is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit B. 2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use. 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 1993. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 1-7 City Council Resolution No. (1993 Series) GP/R 109-93 Page 4 APPROVED: ... EXHIBIT A ER 109-93 Page 17 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER 109-93 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES & MONITORING PROGRAM In conformance with AB 3180, the following mitigation measures will be monitored as indicated below: 1. Vehicular access, other than for emergency vehicles, to the portion of the project site currently addressed as 1250 Iris Street, shall be prohibited. Monitoring The restriction on access shall become a condition of the use permit approving the master plan. 2. Consistency with Professional Office Policy C-3.b.(6.) could be achieved by: a. Denying the request to rezone the property at 1615 Fairview Street from R- 2-S to O-S and eliminating the need for the street connection from the site to Fairview Street; or b. Reducing commercial traffic on residential streets to insignificant levels by adopting mitigation measures to restrict traffic. 3. The Planning Commission and City Council must determine that the proposal is consistent with LUE policy by finding that: a. Access to the site is from an arterial street, rather than a local residential street, given the project's proposed internal connection from Fairview/Breck Street to the signalized intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. This would include the determination that commercial traffic on Breck Street will be insignificant because most vehicles will find that the signalized intersection is more direct and easier to access. b. Proposed mitigation measures restricting traffic on Breck Street outlined in Mitigation Measures 10 and 11 will reduce traffic impacts to a level of insignificance. �- q ER 109-93 Page 18 Monitoring The Planning Commission and City Council will need to weigh the pros and cons of the proposed driveway access through the site from Johnson Avenue to Fairview/Breck Street in terms of general plan policy and adopt appropriate mitigation measures and conditions to assure consistency. 4. The applicant shall mark Ella Street for through-left and right lanes at Johnson Avenue. 5. The applicant shall deposit a letter of credit with the City for the cost of the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street. The letter of credit shall be held for a period of up to five years from complete campus build-out. The applicant shall provide annual reports to the City Engineer, prepared by a Civil Engineer or Traffic Engineer, during the time that the letter of credit is held, evaluating the need for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street. The traffic signal shall be designed to include an emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) and interconnect with the intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. The City will establish an agreement with the applicant for reimbursement for the cost of the signal installation, based on contributing developments in the area over the next 15 years, in accordance with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.44.090. 6. The applicant shall install an emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) at the . intersection of Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Streets. Monitoring_, The City Engineer shall confirm that all traffic mitigations have been successfully fulfilled and/or completed prior to building permit issuance for Phase I development (Building E). 7. The applicant shall submit a plan for the review and approval of the Fire Marshal indicating how minimum access requirements for emergency vehicles will be met without compromising other requirements for parking and landscaping. Monitorinc: The Fire Marshal, by reviewing project plans during architectural review and building permit plan check, will confirm that access complies with City standards. 8. With review of a future use permit for development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street, the Planning Commission shall restrict office uses to those related to the ER 109-93 Page 19 hospital where minimal public access is required thereby decreasing traffic impacts. Monitoring_ With the proposed O-S zoning of the site, a Planning Commission use permit would be processed prior to any uses being established at the site. If the rezoning is supported, then this mitigation measure would also become a condition of master plan approval. 9. With development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street, street access shall either be closed oft'entirely at the intersection of Breck Street and Johnson Avenue or limited to entry only to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Monitoring; Specific measures to limit access from Johnson Avenue to Breck Street would become part of use permit conditions for the development of the property at 1615 Fairview Street. 10. The applicant shall submit precise plans and calculations for how individual buildings will be sewered to the approval of the Public Works and Utilities Directors. Improvements to the capacity of existing sewer mains may be needed. Monitoring: Each new building proposed on the master plan will require processing of a Planning Commission use permit and architectural review. The Public Works and Utilities Directors will review plans submitted with applications for these entitlements and establish specific requirements for sewer service. 11. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, all graded surfaces shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of that project's construction: a. Regular wetting of roads and.graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active areas); b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph; C. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph; —lr ER 109-93 Page 20 d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported on-site or off-site; e. Watering material stockpiles; E Periodic washdowns, or mechanical streetsweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the construction site; and g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work. h. Scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions. Monitoring Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Development Department staff through field inspections during project construction. 12. The applicant shall update the approved parking management plan to provide a trip reduction program that contains a comprehensive list of actions to reduce auto use to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The plan shall include the following additional measures: a. Provide lockable bicycle storage for the office portions of the proposed medical facilities consistent with the office standards specified in the Bicycle Transportation Plan (June 1993). b. Include showers and lockers in the project to encourage employees to ride bicycles or walk to work. C. Provide preferential parking places (closer to building entries) for employees who carpool. d. Expand incentive program to include employees who bicycle or walk to work. Monitorine: City Community Development Department, or Public Works Traffic Division, staff would monitor the trip reduction program annually until the County APCD sets up an independent monitoring program. ER 109-93 Page 21 13. Protective fencing shall be installed prior to, and maintained in place until conclusion of, grading and development of parking lot areas to prevent excess soil from sloughing off into sensitive creek and ravine environments on the site. Monitoring: Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Development Department staff through field inspections during project construction. 14. To insure maintenance of the mature trees on the site, the heavily wooded portions not to be used for parking and/or building pads should be maintained as permanent open space easements. Monitoring: The requirement for the open space easements shall become a condition of master plan approval. 15. Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto adjacent properties. The specific design of lighting shall be to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. The ARC shall carefully review the height and type of lighting fixtures. Monitoring: The ARC shall review specific proposals for parking lot lighting as part of specific plans for each proposed building and associated parking. 16. If the Community Development Director determines that the above mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures. /l3 u +•dI city of EXHIBIT B gmwjMl San Luis OBISpO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT MAP 4.•4•.4.0.04.64• 4444• •0440•. • ° • • • • • :.••.•••..••..• .••:` 4444 4444.. j�;=��`�.i I • • ° • • • � � • • • � �� • • • • ........ .•... � ... 4444.. ........•... ••. 4444. • 1/`��,= ♦ r s • • •�� ° ° • • • e ° ° ° • . ' ! . • •,,,•,,,,.• 4444• 04r• •• •• • • 4444.•• 4444 •• 4444•• • � .• 4444 • ... 4444 4444 ..a4. • • • „4444 •• � 44400 • ■ • • • • • • • • • •• ••••••••• 4444•• • • ° • ° ° • • • ° • • r, 6 • • 0 • / • • ..••.:••••• ` /�� 4444••• • • • • .•:• 4444 4444•• • • . • • ° • • • • • • • •. 4444' •644.41• • • • • • ' • • • • • • • • • ••.•• ••.• L� 4444••• • • • • ! • • • • • • • • o • 4444•.•• • ``/' 4444•• * use° • • • • • 1 • • • • . • 4444..4444 /`/ �••••• • • • •••••••••• 4444.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••••••• •446.6 • • • • • • • • • • • • 4444•.••• 4444••• • • • • • • • • • •••••• •••• • • • • • • e • • • • • 4444• ••• 4444. ■ e • • • • . ■ • • 00 O •••••• • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • 000000 O 000 ':::::• • • ♦ � " ' • • " • • • 0000000 00000000 44.4•• ' ' • • • ■ • ■ • r 00000000000000000 e""'0° ° ° ° 4444 • • • 0000000000000000 ':::::. ' • • • • • • • • • no•0 000000000000000000000 4444 4000 4444 • • 0000000000000000000000 •�• , • • • • • • • ■ ■ • • 00000000000000000000000 4444 4444 • 4040 000000000000000000000000 0::::660 • • • • • ° 0000000000000000000000000 •„e„• • • 0 • 4444 0000000000 000000000000000 4444.. • • • a 000000000 0000000000000000 640.0 • • • • • 000 0000 0000000000000000 �� • • 000 00 k0000000000000000 • • 0000 0000000000000000 •goes' ° • • • 000 000000000000000 •o ,• � : : : 0 • 000 000000000000000 00 O 0 0000000000000000 ••:::• • • • • O 00 ••• '•• 000000000000000 44.4°• • • 0000 ""• "'e'•.•... ••• 000000000000 ""• ' ° ° • ••. •4.6.4 • OOO ••.••••.• •••.••.• 0000000000'0 •• .••.64 • • • • • 0000 4.644•.•4 ..4..644.4 000000'000e•'• 06.06 • • • • ••••••.••• ••64.4•.e 4. •e••••4 •1.14.4 00 40 044400 •.r6e.4444440 00000000 •0..••. • • • 4444.• •.• O 4444•• r••o ••• 00000 • • •••••.• (� •.•.• • • •4.44• 6•e• .:::::4.x46 446 • 4444 . O 4•••• 4••4.4•• 646 • ••..•••• .• 4444 O� • • 1 • !4444••• 4444• ° .•44.4.••4•.• 460.940•6• •444• •••,.•• 0.069 ' 6••4•..•..44.4 /�►4444.•• ••444 • • • • • 4444 ....••.•.• •4• 0c/" 44.6.4 .606• \•. , • 4444 ° 4444..� ..4444 ... .40.•• . •.G�.400 4444• A, . .•. .•.4 ..4 4444'�` .• • • `` • • •.. ` `' • • • • • • • • • • •::-Go ..• 2 •• •46.4• \7.0 ••• •4'y •• 4• V 0 • • • • • e • • • I� • • •44.6 \�. •4.06• • 46• •• ` • 4444 • • • •40•• •0••e••• 464. 64. • 46..4. • • ■ • 46•• • ••4.464.4• 4.•44• ••• •.4.44• • • • • • ° • • : • ':. " • •.46 .•44•••444• •..r4•• •• 6.444••. .• • • • • •4•.4•..444 ••64•r . •0..4••4.4 • • • • • • ••. 4• •••446...0• • 4444• ••6044.•.•• • • • • • ••• .466464• •.40. ••• 60.• 66••44•• • • • ! • • 4444 •4.46 44.4.44 ••66.4• o40H. • • • • • ° • • • • 40. e• 4.4••4..• •4604046 •• • • • • • • • •' � ••64.44••0 • •.64••04• • • • • • • • •4• • • •• ••.44• •. 6.4•...4.• • • • • • • • • 4• .••.• ••••e••4•• . • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • •..4•. •.•4460. 4 • • • • • • • • • , FROM ...... r ......4.t4 . . . . • . . . . . . ••• MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL " "" ' 4.50 • • e • 6 • ' ! • • • • • • • • • . f 4444.. TO4 • . • • • • . ! • ..60.4 • • • • • • • • • • s • • • 444 • • ��t �` OFFICE • • • • • e 0 0 0 a • • • • • • 40:000 •.0.44•.•• 6666.4604.6.64044.4fo a e • • • • • • • • ' • : • • • • • 4444 •440.464•. 4.4.0..•4••6••40••' • • • ° • • • • • • ° • • •4..• 44••.•...• ••44.4•••44••••44• • • • • • • • • •.e.• ..4.44.4• 4..•6044.400.04.••• • • • 4444.• ••4040• ••6•••.4404444••.4• • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • $00 ••• .•••• '0' •••6 0••.•6 4 4 4.•0•.4 V • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ! •16 .4..4• ••4•.6.4••44.6 4.406 • • / • • • • .64.6.446• 4004 4.•.•0.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ■ • • • .4.6.4.4•• •••.•.• • • • • • • ! • • •••••••.•••• •4••• 4444•.• ' • ' • ° • • • • • • • • • • ' ° • • • • ! • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • .• ....•.4•.• •..0444444•.. 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • • • ••••••••.••• Q..69* •...••• • • ° • • • • • • • • • •4.04••..• •.444• •0.•04. • • • • • • ! • • • ! • • • • • • . •4•..4••4• 6x.44• •444•.• • � •� • • • • • • • • 4444.•0•••6 4444•• 4444••• • • 1 • • • • • • • • • 0 • • ° • • • • • • • • • • •44••....4• .••4.• 044.•.•• 4444 • . • • ! • 00 . 0 • • 6 • • ! • • •0••4.4.0.0 4..444 •0600.0• • ° • • • • • ..4444.06• 0.4040 •.••4••• • 1 4 • • 6 • 0 • •.•••0...6 •x4.6• .•444400 • • • • • • • 0 : : : ° •..•..440 •.4444 •464440• ' ° 0 • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • 4 • • . . • • • 0 ' . 4444 . . !• 444 . . . ' 4444 . . . . • • ° 0 • • • 0 4 ........ .•0.4• ••44•.•4 • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • a • • • • ! • • e • • • 4444••• •..•.. 4444.o• e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • 93-33 AT - tCHMENT 2 ORDINANCE.NO. (1993 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP FROM R-2-S TO 0-S FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1250 IRIS STREET AND 1615 FAIRVIEW STREET AND FROM O-PD TO O-S FOR PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE DEVELOPED HOSPITAL PROPERTY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held hearings to consider appropriate zoning for the subject site in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the California Government Code; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Zoning Map Designation. That the sites be rezoned "O-S" as shown on the map attached marked Exhibit C and included herein by reference. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the mitigation measures shown on the attached Exhibit A into the project. SECTION 3. Adoption. The O-S rezoning of the sites is approved, subject to the following findings: 1250 Iris Street 1. The proposed rezoning for the property at 1250 Iris Street will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because the site is naturally separated and buffered from the rest of'the neighborhood by the creek area and the vegetation along it. 2. The proposed rezoning for the property at 1250 Iris Street is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, given the limitation on access from City Council Ordinance No. (1993 Series) GP/R 109-93 Page 2 the site to Iris Street will prevent traffic impacts to the adjacent neighborhood, and the loss in residential development potential is insignificant when considered from a citywide perspective. 3. The proposed development of the site at 1250 Iris Street as parking is appropriate since it is physically integrated with other hospital facilities and will be compatible with surrounding land uses with the proposed landscaped treatment of the street frontage. 1615 Fairview Street 4. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan because commercial traffic introduced into the Breck/Fairview Street residential neighborhood will be insignificant. This determination can be made because of the project's proposed internal connection from Fairview/Breck Street to the signalized intersection of Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. Most vehicles will find that the signalized intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street will be more direct and easier to access than the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Breck Street. Therefore, access to the site can be viewed as being from an arterial street, rather than a residential street. 5. The proposed development of the site with a hospital-related use is appropriate since the proposed driveway connection from the developed portion of the property to this site will physically integrate it with other hospital facilities and it will be compatible with surrounding land uses. Property to the west of French Hospital 6. The proposed rezoning will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of persons living or working in the area or at the site. 7. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the general plan. 8. The proposed rezoning is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. All Sites 9. The proposed "S", Special Consideration Overlay Zoning, will address the unique concerns with development of these sites which are: City Council Ordinance No. (1993 Series) GP/R 109-93 Page 3 ■ Types and sizes of medical-related uses established at the site are consistent with general plan policies and are logically related to the hospital master plan; ■ City noise standards are satisfied; ■ Traffic impacts are mitigated and safe on-site circulation, as well as safe access to the site are provided; and ■ Open space is preserved. 10. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on October 28, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached Exhibit A being incorporated into the project, and the City Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. SECTION 4. Implementation. A summary of this ordinance, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published, at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on the day of 1993, on motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Council Ordinance No. (1993 Series). GP/R 109-93 Page_4 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED. . tto.- ey - - - e+ c'ty of EXHIBIT C san lugs oBispo REZONE MAP Fi�3 Ob o � b h � JFFJ'A x 7 y • '� J y. • L� FFR ICrl H J;SP1 A i _=FRQNf ry_ 0 ,S ©� +0 • . ..:]: Tena `y ty � 0 •o re ro. Z y tr w..r '• O • t � J'.I � f'f • r•'r. 444 (D 2 00 \ O fit' )/�\- �/^' y <` � �� • y' `w. UI 93-32 EXHIBIT A ER 109-93 Page 17 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ER 109-93 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES & MONITORING PROGRAM In conformance with AB 3180, the following mitigation measures will be monitored as indicated below: 1. Vehicular access, other than for emergency vehicles, to the portion of the project site currently addressed as 1250 Iris Street, shall be prohibited. Monitoring: The restriction on access shall become a condition of the use permit approving the master plan. 2. Consistency with Professional Office Policy C.3.b.(6.) could be achieved by: a. Denying the request to rezone the property at 1615 Fairview Street from R- 2-S to— .O-S and eliminating the need for the street connection from the site to Fairview Street; or b. Reducing commercial traffic on residential streets to insignificant levels by adopting mitigation measures to restrict traffic. 3. The Planning Commission and City Council must determine that the proposal is consistent with LUE policy by finding that: a. Access to the site is from an arterial street; rather than a local residential street, given the project's proposed internal connection from Fairview/Breck Street to the signalized intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. This would include the determination that commercial traffic on Breck Street will be insignificant because most vehicles will find that the signalized intersection is more direct and easier to access. b. Proposed mitigation measures restricting traffic on Breck Street outlined in Mitigation Measures 10 and 11 will reduce traffic impacts to a level of insignificance. i-ao ER 109-93 Page 1S Monitoring: The Planning Commission and City Council will need to weigh the pros and cons of the proposed driveway access through the site from Johnson Avenue to Fairview/Breck Street in terms of general plan policy and adopt appropriate mitigation measures and conditions to assure consistency. 4. The applicant shall mark Ella Street for through-lett and right lanes at Johnson Avenue. 5. The applicant shall deposit a letter of credit with the City for the cost of the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street. The letter of credit shall be held for a period of up to five years from complete campus build-out. The applicant shall provide annual reports to the City Engineer, prepared by a -Civil Engineer or Traffic Engineer, during the time that the letter of credit is held, evaluating the need for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street. The traffic signal shall be designed to include an emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) and interconnect with the intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. The City will establish an agreement with the applicant for reimbursement for the cost of the signal installation, based on contributing developments in the area over the next 15 years, in accordance with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.44.090. 6. The applicant shall install an emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Streets. Monitoring: The City Engineer .shall confirm that all traffic mitigations have been successfully fulfilled and/or completed prior to building permit issuance for Phase I development (Building E). 7. The applicant shall submit a plan for the review and approval of the Fire Marshal indicating how minimum access requirements for emergency vehicles will be met without compromising other requirements for parking and landscaping. Monitorins: The Fire Marshal, by reviewing project plans during architectural review and building permit plan check, will confirm that access complies with City standards. 8. With review of a future use permit for development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street, the Planning Commission shall restrict office uses to those related to the l�o� l ER 109-93 Page 19 hospital where minimal public access is required thereby decreasing traffic impacts. Monitoring: With the proposed O-S zoning of the site, a Planning Commission use permit would be processed prior to any uses being established at the site. If the rezoning is supported, then this mitigation measure would also become a condition of master plan approval. 9. With development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street, street access shall either be closed off entirely at the intersection of Breck Street and Johnson Avenue or limited to entry only to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Monitoring: Specific measures to limit access from Johnson Avenue to Breck Street would become part of use permit conditions for the development of the property at 1615 Fairview Street. 10. The applicant shall submit precise plans and calculations for how individual buildings will be sewered to the approval of the Public Works and Utilities Directors. Improvements to the capacity of existing sewer mains may be needed. Monitoring- Each onitoringEach new building proposed on the master plan will require processing of a Planning Commission use permit and architectural review. The Public Works and Utilities Directors will review plans submitted with applications for these entitlements and establish specific requirements for sewer service. 11. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, all graded surfaces shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of that project's construction: a. Regular wetting of roads and.graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active areas); b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph; C. Cessation of grading activities during periods of Nvinds over 25 mph; ER 109-93 Page 21 13. Protective fencing shall be installed prior to, and maintained in place until conclusion of, grading and development of parking lot areas to prevent excess soil from sloughing off into sensitive creek and ravine environments on the site. Monitorin} Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Development Department staff through field inspections during project construction. 14. To insure maintenance of the mature trees on the site, the heavily wooded portions not to be used for parking and/or building pads should be maintained as permanent open space easements. Monitoring_ The requirement for the open space easements shall become a condition of master plan approval. 15. Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto adjacent properties. The specific design of lighting shall be to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. The ARC shall carefully review the height and type of lighting fixtures. Monitoring: The ARC shall review specific proposals for parking lot lighting as part of specific plans for each proposed building and associated parking. 16. If the Community Development Director determines that the above mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible; he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures. a23 ATTP-,�;HMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. (1993 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT (LUE) MAP FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1250 IRIS STREET AND 1615 FAIRVIEW STREET BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings That this Council, after consideration of the amendments and staffs analysis, the Planning Commission's recommendation, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1250 Iris Street 1. The proposed general plan amendment for the property at 1250 Iris Street is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan because it will adversely affect neighborhood character and results in the loss of a potential site for housing. 1615 Fairview Street 2. The proposed development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street is inappropriate since it is not physically integrated with other hospital facilities and will be incompatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The proposed general plan amendment is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan because it will introduce commercial traffic into the Breck/Fairview Street residential neighborhood. SECTION 2. The request for the amendment(s) to the Land Use Element map and zoning map to change the designation(s) from Medium-Density Residential (R-2-S) to Office (O-S) for property located at [specify either 1250 Iris Street or 1615 Fairview Street or both sites] is hereby denied. City Council Resolution No. (1993 Series) GP/R 109-93 Page 2 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 1993. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: ' Att rn ::t,lar:;IC:i:gJii�l, city Of SAn WIS OBISPO -- 7-M_R_ 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 83403.8100 November 18, 1993 Cambridge Healthcare 12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1223 Los Angeles, CA 90027 l Subject: Actions Relating to Property at 1941 Johnson Avenue General Plan Amendment/Rezoning GP/R 109-93 Use Permit U 109-93 The Planning Commission, at its meeting of November 10, 1993, recommended to the City Council that the General Plan Map Amendment, to change the Land Use Element map designation from Medium-Density Residential to Office, and the Rezoning, to change the zoning from R-2-S to O-S, Office with the Special Consideration Overlav, for the property located at 1250 Iris Street, be approved, subject to the following findings: Findings 1. The proposed rezoning/general plan amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because the site is naturally separated and buffered from the rest of the neighborhood by the creek area and the vegetation along it. 2. The proposed rezoning/general plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, given the limitation on access from the site to Iris Street will prevent traffic impacts to the adjacent neighborhood, and the loss in residential development potential is insignificant when considered from a citywide perspective. 3. The proposed development of the site as parking is appropriate since it is physically integrated with other hospital facilities and will be compatible with surrounding land uses with the proposed landscaped treatment of the street frontage. A =1 The proposed "S", Special Consideration Overlay Zoning, will address the unique concerns with development of this site which are: ■ Types and sizes of medical-related uses established at the site are consistent with general plan policies and are logically related to the hospital master plan; ■ City noise standards are satisfied; ttt ATTACHMENT 4 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services. programs and acnv:files. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (8051 781.7310 ■ Traffic impacts are mitigated and safe on-site circulation, as well as safe access to the site are provided; and ■ Open space is preserved. 5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on October 28, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached Exhibit A being incorporated into the project, and the Planning Commission hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission. The Commission also recommended to the City Council that the General Plan Map Amendment, to change the Land Use Element map designation from Medium-Density Residential to Office, and the Rezoning, to change the zoning from R-2-S to O-S, Office with the Special Consideration Overlay, for the property located at 1615 Fairview Street, be approved, subject to the following findings: Findines 1. The proposed rezoning general plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General .Plan because commercial traffic introduced into the Breck/Fairview Street residential neighborhood will be insignificant. This determination can be made because of the project's proposed internal connection from Fairview/Breck Street to the signalized intersection of Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. Most vehicles will find that the signalized intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street will be more direct and easier to access than the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Breck Street. Therefore, access to the site can be viewed as being from an arterial street, rather than a residential street. 2. The proposed development of the site with a hospital-related use is appropriate since the proposed driveway connection from the developed portion of the property to this site will physically integrate it with other hospital facilities and it will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The proposed "S", Special Consideration Overlay Zoning, will address the unique concerns with development of this site which are: ■ TvDes and sizes of medical-related uses established at the site are consistent with general plan policies and are logically related to the hospital roaster plan; ■ City noise standards are satisfied; ■ Traffic impacts are mitigated and safe on-site circulation, as well as safe access to the site are provided; and ■ Open space is preserved. 4. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on October 28, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached Exhibit A being incorporated into the project, and the Planning Commission hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission.. The Commission also recommended that the rezoning, to change the zoning from O-PD to O-S, for the undeveloped property to the west of the hospital be approved, subject to the following findings: Findings 1. The proposed rezoning will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of persons living or worldng in the area or at the site. 2. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the general plan. 3. The proposed rezoning is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 4. The proposed "S", Special Consideration Overlay Zoning, will address the unique concerns with development of this site which are: ■ Types and sizes of medical-related uses established at the site are consistent with general plan policies and are logically related to the hospital master plan; ■ City noise standards are satisfied; ■ Traffic impacts are mitigated and safe on-site circulation, as well as safe access to the site are provided; and ■ Open space is preserved. 5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on October 28, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project.development. The Negative Declaration concludes teat the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached Exhibit A being incorporated into the project, and the Planning Commission hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission. The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on December 7, 1993. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office. In a related action, the Commission approved your request for a use permit to allow the addition of a medical office building to the site with a 45.5 foot maximum height and to allow a 2 percent mixed-use parking reduction at the above address. Approval is based on findings and subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution. This decision of the commission is final unless appealed to the City Clerk within ten days of the action. An appeal may be tiled by any. person aggrieved by a decision of the commission. If the use or structure authorized by this use permit is not established within one year of the date of approval or such longer time as may be stipulated as a condition of approval, the use permit shall expire. See Municipal Code Section 17.58.070.D. for possible renewal. The Commission also amended Mitigation Measure No. 5 to read: The applicant shall deposit a letter of credit with the City for the cost of the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street. The letter of credit shall be held for a period of up to five years from complete campus build-out. The applicant shall provide annual reports to the City Engineer, prepared by a Civil Engineer or Traffic Engineer, during the time that the letter of credit is held, evaluating the need for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street. The traffic signal shall be designed to include an emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) and interconnect with the intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. The City will establish an agreement with the applicant for reimbursement for the cost of the signal installation, based on contributing developments in the area over the next 1.5 years, in accordance with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.44.090. If you have any questions, please contact Pamela Ricci at 781-7176. Sinc ely, Arnol B. Jonas, Dir�ctor m Comunity DeveUnl ent cc: Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group Attachment: Resolution No. 5127-93 l a9 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5127-93 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Ciry of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 10, 1993, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application No. U 109-93 by Cambridge Healthcare Development Corp., applicant. USE PERMIT REQUESTED: To allow the addition of a medical office building to the site with a 45.5 foot maximum height and to allow a 2 percent mixed-use parking reduction. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 1941 Johnson Avenue. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: Public/Semi-Public. PRESENT ZONING: O-S. WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies made by itself, and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence of the following circumstances: 1. Development included in the proposed master plan will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living at the site or in the vicinity, because the project design and required review of certain future uses address the concerns of the special considerations zone which are: Resolution No. 5127-93 Use Permit U 109-93 Page 2 ■ Types and sizes of medical-related uses established at the site are consistent with general plan policies; ■ City noise standards are satisfied; ■ Traffic impacts are mitigated and safe on-site circulation, as well as safe access to the site are provided; and ■ Open space is preserved. 2. The development is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The proposal conforms to the general plan and meet zoning ordinance requirements, including the concerns of the special considerations zone. 4. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on October 28, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached Exhibit A being incorporated into the project, and the Planning Commission hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. U 109-93 be approved subject to the following conditions: Use Limitations 1. The use permit shall not take effect until GP/R 109-93 becomes effective after approval by the City Council. 2. Uses shall be limited to hospital facilities, physician's offices, offices for health professionals, outpatient medical services and medical laboratories. Residential patient care shall require the approval of an administrative use permit. l�� Resolution No. 5127-93 Use Permit U 109-93 Page 3 Building Height Variance 3. The Planning Commission hereby approves a variance from property development standards to allow a height of 45.5 feet for Building E, based on the following findings: a. The large size of the hospital campus and the master plan concept for its development, which allow for greater controls and more detailed review over proposed and future development of the site, constitute circumstances which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning. b. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, because other hospital facilities are of the same or greater height than that proposed for Building E. C. The variance will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons working on the site or in the vicinity, given its proposed siting near other similar facilities and substantial separation from the closest residences. Mixed Use Parking Reduction 4. The Planning Commission hereby approves a 5% mixed use parking reduction for Phase II development based on the premise that the master plan concept for hospital development will encourage the use of multiple facility visits with individual trips to the site. Community Development Requirements 5. Vehicular access from off-site, other than for emergency vehicles, to the portion of the project site currently addressed as 1250 Iris Street, shall be prohibited. 6. A permanent open space and pedestrian access easement shall be dedicated to the City for the vegetated open space areas in the western part of the site to the approval of the Community Development Director and the City Attorney. The open space areas are generally described as being located between the western property lines and the western edge of proposed parking lot areas, extending to the north and including the ravine area, with the northern boundary extending above the eucalyptus grove. The open space and access easements. shall run with the land and provide the following limitations on land use or alterations: l 3�- Resolution No. 5127-93 Use Permit U 109-93 Page 4 a. Improvements within the easement area shall be consistent with open space and pedestrian uses to the approval of the Community Development Director. b. No advertising of any kind shall be located within said premises. C. The general topography of the area shall be preserved substantially in its existing condition. No grading shall be allowed except as permitted by the Community Development Director. d. No removal of vegetation except for fire protection or other hazards or elimination of diseased growth as approved by the Community Development Director. 7. Site grading and drainage plans shall be submitted along with applications for use permit and architectural review of individual buildings. 8. The project shall include facilities for interior and exterior recycling. The applicant shall consult with local recyclers regarding the size and location of areas dedicated to on-site recycling storage. 9. The project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling of discarded concrete, sheetrock, wood and metals from the construction site to the approval of the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or Community Development Director. 10. Any building constructed on the portion of the property at 1615 Fairview Street shall be limited in size to 6,000 square feet of gross floor area. Fire Department Requirements 11. An approved graphic annunciator panel(s) shall be installed in conjunction with the automatic fire sprinkler system and fire alarm systems. The current hospital graphic annunciator panel shall be upgraded to reflect the new medical complex. 12. Traffic control signals shall have emergency preemption devices (Opticom systems) installed to expedite emergency access. 13. Fire hydrants shall be upgraded and installed to the approval of the Fire Marshal. 143 Resolution No. 5127-93 Use Permit U 109-93 Page 5 Public Works Department Requirements 14. A 20-foot easement shall be reserved along the site's northern boundary between Fairview Street and the western edge of the property, and along the western edge of the property, to accommodate installation of a Class I bicycle path. A lesser easement may be shown if more precise design plans are submitted to show the alignment of the bicycle path. Environmental Protection Agency Requirement 15. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. Public Right-of-Way 16. The asphalt/concrete berm at the easterly end of Iris Street shall be removed. The developer shall construct new 6-foot integral curb, gutter and sidewalk along the entire Iris Street frontage and paveout the street to meet the new frontage improvements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Water. Sewer & Utilities 17. Each parcel must be served with individual water, sewer and utilities. The plans shall be made clear how each building is to be served. 18. The developer shall provide necessary easement(s) for the proposed private water/fire system(s), sewer(s), utilities and drainage. 19. The public water main in Iris Street shall be extended to the end of the cul-de- sac, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. 20. Due to the potential cross connections, approved backflow devices (double check assembly w/detector or RP unit w/detector) shall be installed on all water and fire lines. The device shall be placed in private property as close to the public Resolution No. 5127-93 Use Permit U 109-93 Page 6 right-of-way as possible. Where firelines serve both fire sprinklers and fire hydrants, all approved backflow devices shall be equipped with a detector meter. 21. Calculations shall be submitted showing how the required fire flow will be met to the approval of the Fire marshal and the Utilities Engineer. Grading_& Drainage 22. The subdivider shall provide the City Engineer with a detailed hydraulic analysis which indicates the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties. The analysis must address and identify the following: a. The existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities in order to provide design criteria that meet City standards. The proposed development cannot create a situation which increases flooding potential downstream. Otherwise, detention facilities may be required as a condition of development, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. Any areas within the project subject to inundation during a 100-yr storm. Any lots subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad elevations at least 1 foot above the 100-yr storm elevation, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The areas subject to flooding shall be noted on the final map. If the study identifies areas subject to flooding which are not shown on the current Flood Insurance Rate Map, or, are in conflict with said map, the subdivider shall process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), or, Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to final acceptance of the development, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 23. If clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including any tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs are proposed, all work shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Department of Fish and Game. �r Resolution No. 5127-93 Use Permit U 109-93 Page 7 The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo upon the motion of.Commr. Senn, seconded by Commr. Karleskint, and upon the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Senn, Karleskint, Cross, Hoffman, Whittlesey, Williams, Sigurdson NOES: None ABSENT: None Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary Planning Commission DATED: November 10, 1993 /-36 ATTACHMENT 5 IN I �•' r•• r ••i .: 11r' �f � 1 I .,j:.•I•I A1.1 1 1 I!..{'.lr' i'lf�l•I� I 1 I I l•�I M' •' •� _ •,Ib r.l•1 ! III 4� 1 I:�;• : I EIED . �"`r tom' ��\ �� `�• d a Lr: l l - . . A \ •' ./• •.`' - �.ti, �=_�}.v' 'r �� 'I. • .., ,,. �• of :�'.' .,•,r�r�:��:1,. --. ...--- 1 `.,;, - - _. _i...-t`,-•-- - iol -> CLQ i • e6 � .� m .� I � !' ! �'s _ :! Cil'• ,!"�- '� '-- $ i _ { I I �' � � - .•� -.� � . �p= cY. all I S d�'•g zr e 77 z !4 ', wnln _l±off -, _�� 6 •, ' A 114 7. mm `. UIIIIII7�III�Ii .tXV I•�L ie z .. ...may a. r y0 CG y czi rn F�','�r•�.v,4 1 a l SutA. 4 LiI 1 I SITE PLAN FRPl:QI HOSPITAL CAMPUS YASTER PLAN / ATCHMENT 6 FRENCH HOSPITAL PROJECT ISSUES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/REZONING REQUESTS O-PD TO 0-S - UNDEVELOPED AREA, WEST OF THE HOSPITAL ■ NOT A CHANGE IN LAND USE; PO VS. S OVERLAY 1250 IRIS - R-2-S TO 0-S ■ LOSS OF POTENTIAL FOR HOUSING ■ COMPATIBILITY OF PARKING LOT DEVELOPMENT WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD 1615 FAIRVIEW - R-2-S TO 0-S ■ LOSS OF POTENTIAL FOR HOUSING ■ COMPATIBILITY OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT WITH RESIDENCES ■ TRAFFIC/POLICY ISSUES WITH FAIRVIEW/BRECK STREETS CONNECTION TO DRIVEWAY THROUGH HOSPITAL SITE USE PERMIT PHASE I DEVELOPMENT BUILDING E) ■ S-ZONE - ALLOW MEDICAL OFFICE ADDITION ■ APPROPRIATENESS OF DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO OTHER FACILITIES ■ ALLOW BUILDING HEIGHT OF 45 . 5 FEET (VARIANCE FINDINGS) ■ ON-SITE CIRCULATION ■ CONVENIENCE AND AMOUNT OF PARKING PHASE II DEVELOPMENT (MASTER PLAN FOR FUTURE FACILITIES) ■ MASTER PLAN IN LIEU OF PD PRELIMINARY PLAN ■ OPEN SPACE DEDICATIONS ■ PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION ■ CONVENIENCE AND AMOUNT OF PARKING - 5% MIXED USE PARKING REDUCTION PROJECT ACTION DEADLINE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PERMIT STREAMLINING. DEADLINES FOR OTHER COMPONENTS OF PROJECT ACTIVATED WITH ACTIONS ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND REZONINGS. 1-3g ATTACHMENT 7 - FORTHCOMING DRAFT 1.1/10/93 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1. TACHMENT 8 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM#2 BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner pR MEETING DATE: 11-10-93 FILE NUMBERS: GP/R 109-93, U 109-93 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1941 Johnson Avenue SUBJECT: Request for planning entitlements to allow further development of the French Hospital campus including the hospital property, the Pacific Medical Plaza property and other properties owned by Summit Health to the northwest and the southwest of the hospital, as follows: A. Environmental Determination (ER 109-93) 1. Review proposed development plans for possible adverse environmental impacts. B. General Plan Amendment/Rezoning (GP/R 109-93) 1. Change the land use designation from Medium-Density Residential to Office for property located at 1615 Fairview Street. Rezone the same property from R-2-S to O-S, Office with the Special Consideration Overlay. 2, Change the land use designation from Medium-Density Residential to Office for property located at 1250 Iris Street. Rezone the same property from R-2-S to O-S, Office with the Special Consideration Overlay. 3. Amend the zoning for the undeveloped property to the west of the hospital from O- PD, Office Planned Development, to O-S, Office with the Special Consideration Overlay. C. Planning Commission Use Permit (U 109-93) 1. Allow the addition of a 30,000 square-foot medical office building to the Pacific Medical Plaza property at 1941 Johnson Avenue because of its O-S zoning (Phase I development). 2. Allow a height variance for the Phase I office building (allow 45.5-foot structure where a 35-foot maximum height may be allowed). 3. Request for approval of hospital master plan including a 5% mixed use parking reduction with full build-out of proposed campus facilities. French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 2 D. Abandonment of portions of Ruth and Church Streets (Aban 109-93) The application for abandonment was filed, but later found not to be necessary. Abandonment of the undeveloped right-of-way was approved by the City Council on July 20, 1970. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION A. Approve a negative declaration of environmental impact. B. 1. Recommend approval to the City Council of the request to change the land use designation from Medium-Density Residential to Office for the property located at 1250 Iris Street and rezone the same property from R-2-S to O-S, Office with the Special Consideration Overlay. 2. Recommend denial of the request to change the land use designation from Medium- Density Residential to Office for the property located at 1615 Fairview Street and deny the rezoning of the same property from R-2-S to O-S, Office with the Special Consideration Overlay. 3. Recommend approval of the rezoning for the undeveloped property to the west of the hospital from O-PD to O-S. C. Approve the use permit with recommended findings and conditions. BACKGROUND Situation Plans have been submitted for the further development of the Pacific Medical Plaza property with a new 30,000 square-foot medical office building. In addition, a master plan for the entire French Hospital campus has been submitted showing future buildings and improvements. Previous Review The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) granted schematic approval to Phase I development, the new medical office building, on October 18, 1993. They made some suggestions on building design, but were more concerned with vehicular and pedestrian circulation in parking lot areas. 1�Z- French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 3 The ARC also commented on the master plan, focussing in on circulation issues and the appropriateness of the land use changes in terms of providing transitions between the residential properties and the hospital campus. A copy of the ARC minutes are attached. Data Summary Applicant (Phase I, Building E): Cambridge Healthcare Development Corporation Applicant (Phase IA, and Phase II master plan): Summit Health Ltd. Representative: Victor Montgomery and Chris Ford, RRM Design Group Project Address: 1941 Johnson Avenue (current address for Pacific Medical Plaza) Zoning/General Plan: Varies for various properties that make up the "campus": 1911 Johnson Avenue (French Hospital) and 1941 Johnson Avenue - O-S; Office with the Special Consideration Overlay 1615 Fairview Street and 1250 Iris Street - R-2-S; Medium Density Residential with the Special Consideration Overlay Undeveloped portions of property west of hospital- O-PD; Office Planned Development Environmental Status: The Community Development Director approved the filing of a negative declaration of environmental impact with mitigation measures on October 28, 1993. Project Description A master plan for the development of the French Hospital "campus" has been submitted by Summit Health, the same corporation that owns the hospital. The word campus is used to describe the existing hospital property, the property developed with the Pacific Medical Plaza office building directly to the south of the hospital, and undeveloped properties to the west, north and southwest that are owned by Summit Health. Further development of the campus properties are proposed in phases. Phase I calls for the development of Building E, a 30,000 square-foot medical office building, on property located just south of the existing Pacific Medical Plaza. The applicant for this new building is Cambridge Healthcare Development Corporation. This phase also includes the development of additional parking on currently undeveloped property to the west of the hospital. Phase IA, which includes the reconfiguration of parking areas near the site's Lizzie Street entry and behind the hospital, would be developed concurrently with the Phase I medical office building and improvements. Phase II involves the development of future buildings and facilities. Building A, located to the north off of Fairview Street, would house some type of office use associated with the hospital, but not necessarily doctors' offices. Building B, located just north of the hospital, /-�f3 French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 4 is proposed as a three-story, 35,000 square-foot medical office building. Building C, proposed near the front entry of the hospital, would be a 6,000 square-foot addition to the hospital as an obstetrics/gynecology center. The obstetrics/gynecology center would be built first (1994-5); other planned buildings would not be constructed for at least another five years. Site Description The total area covered by the hospital's master plan is 17.2 acres. 9.6 acres is developed with the hospital and Pacific Medical Plaza and the remaining 7.6 acres is undeveloped. 1. Developed Portion of Hospital Property (1911 Johnson Avenue) The 6.2-acre site is developed with the hospital, parking lot and driveway areas and landscaping. The developed part of the hospital property is fairly flat, but there is a steep slope bank between Johnson Avenue and the front parking lot, and another steep slope bank between rear parking areas and the undeveloped property owned by the hospital to the west. French Hospital is a one- and two-story building licensed for up to 138 beds. Although it is located on a separate piece of property, it is linked by common driveways to the other medical properties to the immediate south. Surrounding land uses include the medical office buildings to the south, vacant land to the west, and residential uses to the north and east. 2. Pacific Medical Plaza (1941 Johnson Avenue), The Pacific Medical Plaza is a three-story medical office building located in between French Hospital and the Ella Street medical condominiums on a 3.4-acre site. 3. Undeveloped Portions of Hospital Property The undeveloped portions of the hospital's master planned area are generally located to the west of the hospital and bordered by the railroad on the northwestern property lines. These areas are described in the following paragraphs: a. 1250 Iris Street -this 0.93-acre site is currently zoned R-2-S. Much of the western part of the site is contained within a creek area. Within the creek area is a steep bank which separates the creek channel from the bulk of the site. Another steep slope bank exists along the east property line. The remainder of the site is fairly flat. Most of the site's vegetation exists in the creek area. Several eucalyptus trees and a pepper tree are located near the site's east property line. French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 5 b. Property to the west of the hospital -this 5.3-acre area is currently zoned O-PD. The area is lower in elevation than the developed portion of the hospital property and is separated from it by a steep slope bank. A helicopter pad is still visible, but no longer used. The same creek area described above is located on the southwest side. c. 1615 Fairview Street -this 1.4-acre site is currently zoned R-2-S and is located on a quiet cul-de-sac accessed via Breck Street from Johnson Avenue. The immediate neighborhood contains mostly apartment buildings. A house on the site was recently demolished after an arson fire. A mature stand of eucalyptus trees and a open drainage course are located on the south side of this area. EVALUATION The lengthy and detailed Background section of this report was prepared to clarify the properties and parties involved with the various requests that make up both Phase I and Phase II development. Presenting the information clearly and succinctly is a challenge because there are multiple property owners, two project applicants, several distinct properties and different zoning categories. The Evaluation section of this report has been structured to first describe the processing approach taken with the project and then to discuss policy, circulation and environmental issues associated with Phase I and Phase II development. A. Processing Strateev On June 6, 1989, the rezoning of the property directly to the west of the hospital was rezoned from R-2-S to O-PD. A preliminary development plan was approved with the rezoning which showed a two-story medical office building containing 39,000 square feet of floor area developed on the portion of the site closest to the railroad tracks. Parking was proposed between the new building and the existing hospital. The filing period for submittal of a precise plan for the project was extended several times by requests from the applicant. Application No. R 1513 was filed on March 7, 1991, to rezone the property from O-PD, Office Planned Development to O-S, Office Special Consideration. The applicant indicated that they wished to develop a new preliminary plan for future hospital expansion, but had not have yet developed plans. On July 10, 1991, the Planning Commission extended the period for filing a new preliminary development plan to July 10, 1993, given the applicant's intention to modify the project. They did this instead of modifying the zoning of the property to O-S as requested by the applicant. After the Commission's action, the rezoning request was withdrawn. French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 6 Representatives of Summit Health and Cambridge Healthcare met with City staff several times prior to the July 10, 1993 submittal deadline to discuss processing strategies and submittal requirements. They were instructed that a new traffic study would need to be prepared because of the amount of time that had transpired since the last project was reviewed and the fact that the project design and description had substantially changed. The current applications for further development of the hospital campus were received on July 9, 1993. In the last three months, staff has had several meetings to discuss project issues and as a result, more information has been submitted and changes have been made to plans. One issue that has been discussed is O-PD versus O-S as the preferred zoning for the property. Summit Health has applied for O-S zoning on its undeveloped properties to the west in keeping with the current O-S zoning of the hospital and Pacific Medical Plaza. The pros and cons of O-S versus O-PD zoning for the property were discussed at length both in 1989 and 1991 when rezonings were considered for the undeveloped properties owned by Summit Health. The advantage of the PD overlay zoning is that it allows the specific project to be reviewed and conditioned simultaneously with the change in land use. In anticipation of City concerns with relinquishing control of how the property would be developed in the future, the applications for rezonings to O-S were accompanied by a use permit application. Part of the use permit review is to approve and condition a master plan for the entire property concurrently with the rezoning requests. The use permit would be contingent upon approval of the requested rezoning by the City Council. With this approach, project uses and guidelines for development can be adopted accomplishing the same objectives as a PD. Individual development in the future would also require applications for a Planning Commission use permit and architectural review. One disadvantage of the use permit approach to conditioning development is that the City Council could not modify the conditions as part of their review of the rezoning. The Council would either have to remand the use permit back to the Planning Commission or consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. This could create practical problems in terms of processing delays if the City Council has some objections to the use permit conditions. B. Phase I Development 1. General Plan Consistency The attached initial study contains a detailed discussion of the project's consistency with the General Plan in Section A., Community Plans and Goals. It concludes that proposed Phase I development, Building E and associated parking, is consistent with General Plan policy favoring medical office expansion near specialized centers. It is also consistent with policy French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 7 calling for access to large professional office projects to be from arterial, rather than local streets, with the recommended mitigation that access from Iris Street be limited to emergency vehicles only. 2. Building Height Exception Building E has been designed to emulate the existing medical plaza in terms of architectural style, materials, height and scale. The proposed building at 45.5 feet in height exceeds the 35-foot maximum building height standard included in the zoning regulations for the Office zone. In order to develop the building as proposed, a building height variance needs to be approved by the Planning Commission along with the use permit required because of the site's O-S zoning. The existing building is about 50 feet in height and was built in 1973. The height requirements for the building were relaxed through approval of a planned development overlay zoning for the construction of the hospital and the office building. The ARC was asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the height variance for the new building from a design context. The Commission indicated their support for the proposed building height. Staff agrees that the building height is appropriate given its proximity to other facilities of similar scale and has included Condition No. 3 approving the required variance. 3. Off-Site Circulation Impacts The traffic study prepared by Gerald Skiles (incorporated into the initial study as Appendix A) indicates that proposed development will not significantly impact area streets. Mitigation measures are recommended including: striping changes in Ella Street at its intersection with Johnson Avenue to enable separate through right and left turn lanes; installation of an emergency vehicle preemption device known as an Opticom at the Lizzie Street/Johnson Avenue intersection; and deposit of a letter of credit for a future traffic signal at the Ella Street/Johnson Avenue intersection. 4. On-Site Circulation Issues In its review of the master plan, several City departments have been critical of the internal circulation patterns created by the layout of proposed driveway and parking lot areas. The Public Works Department suggested that an internal driveway through the site without adjacent parking would improve circulation. The Building Division of the Community Development Department similarly commented that a main feeder route would allow for "a smooth, consistent flow of traffic around the complex". The layout of driveways shown on an earlier version of the site plan included turns, grade changes and structures and other improvements that impeded the flow of through traffic. The Fire Department was concerned with driveways from an emergency vehicle access standpoint. French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 8 The ARC shared many of the same concerns with staff with the proposed internal circulation of the site plan. In response to direction provided at the 10-18-93 ARC meeting, changes were made to the site plan including: ■ aisle widths of the main driveways circling the hospital complex were increased from 28 feet to 30 feet in width; ■ the location for the MRI trailer was modified to run parallel to the face of the building and Johnson Avenue, rather than the perpendicular orientation it currently has; and ■ the lawn area in front of the Pacific medical Plaza building was scaled back to allow the driveway to continue in a direct course, rather than jogging back toward Johnson Avenue. In staffs opinion, these changes provide a major improvement in internal circulation and respond well to the concerns of the ARC and staff. 5. Parkin Approximately 24 parking spaces will be eliminated that currently exist in the area of the proposed Building E footprint (see attached existing site plan). Other adjustments are proposed to parking areas in the vicinity of the new building that result in parking spaces being both removed and added. 200 parking spaces are proposed to be developed in the undeveloped land owned by the hospital to the west as part of Phase I development. The parking proposed to be provided with Phase I development (562 parking spaces) exceeds City parking requirements for existing facilities combined with the new medical office building (526 parking spaces). A Parking Calculations Worksheet prepared by staff is attached to this report. The total parking requirement for existing development plus the new Building E differs from the total included in the parking statistics included on Sheet 1 of submitted plans. The difference can be accounted for by the applicant's use of a straight 1 space/200 square feet ratio for medical buildings other than the hospital and staff's use of the actual parking requirements approved with previous use permits. Parking requirements for existing uses should remain as established and parking requirements for new buildings will be established through the subject use permit. The bulk of the parking spaces to be added during Phase I of the project will be located in the undeveloped area to the west of the hospital. Existing driveways will be extended to access these parking areas. A portion of the new parking lot area is located on property currently zoned R-2-S at 1250 Iris Street. Consistent with its proposed development as a - French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 9 parking area associated with the hospital, a rezoning to O-S has been requested and would need to be approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Two general issues that have come up often with project review and discussion have been the amount of site area devoted to parking and its relative location to proposed buildings. The applicant wants to supply parking that meets standards and which overcomes the impression that the site has inadequate parking. However, the large amount of parking raises aesthetic issues and questions regarding the actual parking demands of the project. The Public Works Department has expressed reservations with the siting of the building because they feel that proposed added parking, in some cases, is too far -away to be realistically used by workers and patients. This lack of convenient parking they feel will have impacts on adjacent neighborhood streets because it will be less likely to be utilized. One suggestion that was made to help reduce the site area devoted to parking and provide conveniently located parking was the idea of constructing a parking structure. Several ARC commissioners also brought up the idea of parking structure with their review of the project. The applicant has indicated that topographical changes and cost considerations prohibit this idea. In terms of addressing concerns with the large amount of parking provided in the project, the total amount of parking spaces proposed with Phase I development has been reduced by 20 spaces since the ARC reviewed plans. Most of the reduction in parking spaces can be attributed to those changes that were made to plans to improve circulation that were highlighted in the previous section of this report. Also, proposed landscaping and the retention of open space areas help mitigate the impacts of large expanses of parking in the project_ Another positive component of the project that will minimize trips to the site and improve the convenience of parking for patients, is the approved parking management program (attached). Air quality mitigation measures that were developed by City staff with input from APCD call for further measures being incorporated into the plan with proposed expansion plans. To address concerns with provided parking being convenient to patients, the applicant indicates that more remote parking will be designated for employees. C. Phase II Development 1. General Plan Consistency As was mentioned with the discussion of Phase I development, professional office policies contained in the LUE encourage centralization of functionally-related offices and favor expansion of offices in specialized centers such as hospitals. Another LUE professional office policy indicates that requests for land use changes from residential to office need to be carefully reviewed for neighborhood compatibility issues. Program # 16 included in the French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 10 Housing Element states that changes from residential to non-residential land use designations will be minimized. In order to resolve these seemingly competing objectives, the Commission needs to weigh the need for expanded hospital facilities located near existing facilities against the need to preserve sites for residential uses. In reviewing the request to change the land use of the vacant property west of the hospital in 1989 from Medium Density Residential (R-2-S) to Office (O-PD), the Commission and Council concluded that preserving the opportunity for the hospital to expand adjacent to existing facilities was the prevailing benefit. With the current master plan, land use changes are now contemplated for two additional sites owned by Summit-Health located at 1250 Iris Street and 1615 Fairview Street. The change in land use for the property at 1250 Iris Street and its development as a parking lot will not result in significant adverse impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The site is naturally separated and buffered from the rest of the neighborhood by the creek area and the vegetation along it. The landscaped treatment along the street will provide a visual transition between the residential uses and the site and help screen parking. The limitation on access from the site to Iris Street will prevent traffic impacts to the adjacent neighborhood. The loss in residential development potential is insignificant when considered from a citywide perspective. Also the site's suitability for residential development is diminished with the proposed expansion of the hospital on the vacant property to the immediate north. The suitability of the change in land use for the property at 1615 Fairview Street raises concerns with compatibility and traffic. Residences are not existing immediately adjacent to the proposed office building, but they are located directly across the street from the site. With the site's proposed O-S zoning, development of the property will require the processing of a Planning Commission use permit. Conditions of that use permit would presumably address compatibility types of issues including hours of operation, lighting and other limitations on office uses to reduce impacts. The most complex policy consistency issue relates to the proposed driveway connection between the project and Fairview/Breck Street to the north. Professional Office Policy C.3.b.(6.) states that 'primary access to professional office activities should be provided from commercial arterial or collector streets and should avoid the use of local residential circulation." The attached initial study concludes that consistency with this policy could be achieved either by denying the rezoning or reducing commercial traffic on residential streets to insignificant levels through mitigation measures. The mitigation measures are to restrict uses at the site through use permit review to those that require minimal public access and to limit access from Johnson Avenue to Breck Street to address safety issues with left-turn movements from Breck Street onto Johnson Avenue. � -s'a French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 11 Because of the traffic and compatibility issues discussed, Planning staff is not in support of the change in land use for the property at 1615 Fairview Street. In addition, the eucalyptus grove and ravine area create a natural physical separation between the rest of the hospital property and this site. Gerald Skiles, the project traffic engineer, states in his report that circulation between hospital facilities should be internal, rather than reliant on use of a public street and further suggests that the connection to Breck Street should be reconsidered. The Public Works Department expressed concerns with increased traffic exiting from Fairview Street onto Johnson Avenue with the rezoning and commercial development of the property at 1615 Fairview Street. 2. Mixed Use Parking Reduction As part of the project use permit application, a 8.5% mixed use parking reduction has been requested. The attached Parking Calculations worksheet for Phase II development prepared by staff indicates that the reduction would actually be 4.3%. The discrepancy in percentages can be attributed to the different total parking requirement that staff calculated for Phase I development. Staff is not opposed to the requested mixed use parking reduction. In fact, in the report prepared for the ARC, it was suggested that granting a larger mixed use reduction for proposed facilities (20% is the maximum mixed use reduction currently available), would be another way of reducing the amount of site area dedicated to parking. Staff suggest that a 5% mixed use reduction be granted at this time as part of the master use permit (Condition No. 4). When individual use permits for future facilities are reviewed, the actual parking requirements may vary depending on the specific uses proposed and precise sizes of buildings. With use permit review, the mixed use parking reduction percentage could also be adjusted. 3. Qpen Space Easements There are two areas on the campus site that contain significant quantities of vegetation and are not proposed for development. One area is the ravine containing a eucalyptus grove that separates the 1615 Fairview Street site from the rest of the property, and the other area is the riparian zone located in the western part of the site off of Iris Street. A detailed evaluation of the plants included in these two areas was prepared by Malcolm Mc Leod and is incorporated by reference into the initial study. Mitigation Measure No. 14 of the initial environmental study recommends that these areas be maintained as permanent open space easements. This was also a requirement of the previous PD approval (exhibit attached). Use Permit Condition No. 6 is proposed as part of the master plan approval that the Community Development Director would approve the precise configuration of the open space easements. In general, the configuration of these areas would be similar to that shown on the exhibit prepared with the previous project. The areas to be included in the French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 12 easements are those located between the western property lines and the western edge of parking lot areas extending to the north and including the ravine area. The northern boundary would logically be defined by a contour line above the eucalyptus grove. The previous PD conditions indicated that the open space easements would also allow for pedestrian access. It was specified that there be "a link between Johnson Avenue and the open space areas separate from the parking lots." Pedestrian pathways through the open space areas are not shown on the latest site plan submitted for the project, but were shown on earlier versions. The reason that the pathways were deleted from plans was that several City departments had pointed out that it would be a requirement for these areas to meet ADA requirements for slope, accessibility and other related improvements. The applicant indicated that such a requirement was cost-prohibitive and potentially environmentally- damaging. An accessible pedestrian pathway has been provided between Iris Street and Fairview Street through project parking lots. Staff is recommending Condition No. 7 be approved as part of the master plan use permit that pedestrian pathways be provided through the open space areas to the approval of the ARC provided that some type of exemption can be found from strict ADA requirements. It may be possible to have less developed types of pathways through these areas since an accessible path of travel is provided through the site and because severe environmental damage may occur with full ADA compliance. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the use permit with findings and conditions, and recommend that the City Council approve some or all of the rezoning requests based on findings. 2. Deny the use permit and deny the rezoning requests based on appropriate findings. Planning Commission action is final unless appealed to the City Council 3. Recommend the City Council adopt some other land use designation for sites. 4. Continue review with direction to the applicant and staff. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Fire Department noted that complete 360 degree fire access was required around the hospital building and expressed concerns with the design of project parking lots in terms of meeting minimum access requirements. Additional fire hydrants will be required for the project. Automatic fire sprinkler systems will be required for all buildings. The Public Works Department presented comments on utilities, right-of-way development and drainage. Extensive comments were received on aspects of both on-site and off-site French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 13 circulation issues. Circulation and parking issues are discussed in detail in this report and the attached initial study. RECOMMENDATION A. Recommend to the City Council that the General Plan Map Amendment, to change the Land Use Element map designation from Medium-Density Residential to Office, and the Rezoning, to change the zoning from R-2-S to O-S, Office with the Special Consideration Overlay, for the property located at 1250 Iris Street, be approved, subject to the following findings: Findings 1. The proposed rezoning/general plan amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because the site is naturally separated and buffered from the rest of the neighborhood by the creek area and the vegetation along it. 2. The proposed rezoning/general plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, given the limitation on access from the site to Iris Street will prevent traffic impacts to the adjacent neighborhood, and the loss in residential development potential is insignificant when considered from a citywide perspective. 3. The proposed development of the site as parking is appropriate since it is physically integrated with other hospital facilities and will be compatible with surrounding land uses with the proposed landscaped treatment of the street frontage. 4. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on October 28, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached Exhibit A being incorporated into the project, and the Planning Commission hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission. B. 'Recommend to the City Council that the General Plan Map Amendment, to change the Land Use Element map designation from Medium-Density Residential to Office, and the Rezoning, to change the zoning from R-2-S to O-S, Office with the Special Consideration Overlay, for the property located at 1615 Fairview Street, be denied, subject to the following findings: French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 14 Findings 1. The proposed rezoning/general plan amendment is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan because it will introduce commercial traffic into a residential neighborhood. C. Recommend to the City Council that the Rezoning, to change the zoning from O-PD to O-S, for the undeveloped property to the west of the hospital be approved, subject to the following findings: Findings 1. The proposed rezoning will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of persons living or working in the area or at the site. 2. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the general plan. 3. The proposed rezoning is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 4. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on October 28, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached Exhibit A being incorporated into the project, and the Planning Commission hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission. D. Approve the use permit to allow development of Building E (Phase I development) and approve a master plan for the development of the French Hospital campus, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. Development included in the proposed master plan will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living at the site or in the vicinity, because the project design and required review of certain future uses address the concerns of the special considerations zone which are: ■ Types of medical-related uses established at the site are consistent with general plan policies; s City noise standards are satisfied; l—•S I French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 15 ■ Traffic impacts are mitigated and safe on-site circulation, as well as safe access to the site are provided; and ■ Open space is preserved. 2. The development is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The proposal conforms to the general plan and meet zoning ordinance requirements, including the concerns of the special considerations zone. 4. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on October 28, 1993, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached Exhibit A being incorporated into the project, and the Planning Commission hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission. Conditions Use Limitations 1. The use permit shall not take effect until GP/R 109-93 becomes effective after approval by the City Council. 2. Uses shall be limited to hospital facilities, physician's offices, offices for health professionals, outpatient medical services and medical laboratories. Residential patient care shall require the approval of an administrative use permit. Building Height Variance 3. The Planning Commission hereby approves a variance from property development standards to allow a height of 45S feet for Building E, based on the following findings: a. The large size of the hospital campus and the master plan concept for its development, which allow for greater controls and more detailed review over proposed and future development of the site, constitute circumstances which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning. b. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same /� JLC French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 16 zoning, because other hospital facilities are of the same or greater height than that proposed for Building E. c. The variance will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons working on the site or in the vicinity, given its proposed siting near other similar facilities and substantial separation from the closest residences. Mixed Use Parking Reduction 4. The Planning Commission hereby approves a 5% mixed use parking reduction for Phase II development based on the premise that the master plan concept for hospital development will encourage the use of multiple facility visits with individual trips to the site. Community Development Requirements 5. Vehicular access from off-site, other than for emergency vehicles, to the portion of the project site currently addressed as 1250 Iris Street, shall be prohibited. 6. A permanent open space and pedestrian access easement shall be dedicated to the City for the vegetated open space areas in the western part of the site to the approval of the Community Development Director and the City Attorney. The open space areas are generally described as being located between the western property lines and the western edge of proposed parking lot areas, extending to the north and including the ravine area, with the northern boundary extending above the eucalyptus grove. The open space and access easements shall run with the land and provide the following limitations on land use or alterations: a. No structure of any kind shall be placed on or within said premises. b. No advertising of any kind shall be located within said premises. c. The general topography of the area shall be preserved substantially in its existing condition. No grading shall be allowed except as permitted by the Community Development Director. d. No removal of vegetation except for fire protection or other hazards or elimination of diseased growth as approved by the Community Development Director. 7. Pedestrian pathways shall be provided through the open space areas to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), provided that compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements can be made without excessive grading or damage to environmentally sensitive portions of the property. f S� French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 17 8. Site grading and drainage plans shall be submitted along with applications for use permit and architectural review of individual buildings. Fire Department Requirements 9. An approved graphic annunciator panel(s) shall be installed in conjunction with the automatic fire sprinkler system and fire alarm systems. The current hospital graphic annunciator panel shall be upgraded to reflect the new medical complex. 10. Traffic control signals shall have emergency preemption devices (Opticom systems) installed to expedite emergency access. 11. Fire hydrants shall be upgraded and installed to the approval of the Fire Marshal. Public Works Department Requirements 12. A 20-foot easement shall be reserved along the site's northern boundary between Fairview Street and the western edge of the property to accommodate installation of a Class I bicycle path with Phase II development. A lesser easement may be shown if more precise design plans are submitted to show the alignment of the bicycle path. The City shall participate in the cost of bridging the drainage swale to accommodate bicycle travel. Any change in the design standards for the bicycle path shall be to the approval of the City Engineer. Evironmental Protection Ageny Requirement 13. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. Public Right-of-Way 14. The asphalt/concrete berm at the easterly end of Iris Street shall be removed. The developer shall construct new 6-foot integral curb, gutter and sidewalk along the entire Iris Street frontage and paveout the street to meet the new frontage improvements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. l�� French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 18 Water. Sewer & Utilities 15. Each parcel must be served with individual water, sewer and utilities. The plans shall be made clear how each building is to be served. 16. The developer shall provide necessary easement(s) for the proposed private water/fire system(s), sewer(s), utilities and drainage. 17. The public water main in Iris Street shall be extended to the end of the cul-de-sac, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. 18. Due to the potential cross connections, approved backflow devices (double check assembly w/detector or RP unit w/detector) shall be installed on all water and fire lines. The device shall be placed in private property as close to the public right-of- way as possible. Where firelines serve both fire sprinklers and fire hydrants, all approved backflow devices shall be equipped with a detector meter. 19. Calculations shall be subnutted showing how the required fire flow will be met to the approval of the Fire marshal and the Utilities Engineer. Grading & Drainage 20. The subdivider shall provide the City Engineer with a detailed hydraulic analysis which indicates the.effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties. The analysis must address and identify the following: a. The existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities in order to provide design criteria that meet City standards. The proposed development cannot create a situation which increases flooding potential downstream. Otherwise, detention facilities may be required as a condition of development, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. Any areas within the project subject to inundation during a 100-yr storm. Any lots subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad elevations at least 1 foot above the 100-yr storm elevation, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The areas subject to flooding shall be noted on the final map. If the study identifies areas subject to flooding which are not shown on the current Flood Insurance Rate Map, or, are in conflict with said map, the subdivider shall process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency. Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), or,Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to final acceptance of the development, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. � S8 French Hospital Campus Master Plan Page 19 21. If clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including any tree pruning or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs are proposed, all work shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Department of Fish and Game. Attached: Exhibit.A - Mitigation Measures (repetitive, not included in Council packet - see initial study and draft resolution and ordinance) Vicinity map Initial Study ER 109-93 (full traffic study included in Council reading file) ARC Minutes of 10-18-93 Existing site plan Parking Calculations Worksheets Approved Parking Management Program Previous open space easement 1-sq city of san tuts OBISpo 4 INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION 1941 Johnson Avenue APPLICATION N;.O9-93 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONConstruct new 30, 000 square-foot office building and develop associated parking. Hospital master plan including future building pads and improvements (zoning/general plan map changes) . APPLICANT Summit Health & Cambridge Healthcare Development Corp. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 'NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED PREPAREDBYPam Ricci, Associate Planner DATE 10-27-93 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: �j DATE 10AB/93 `(\1T16 rbEf LM=aJ Ctrm SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ...... .... ...... . . .. ........ . ... . . .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. YES* B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH..... . ................. ......... . . ... . . . .. NONE* C. LAND USE ............... .... ............................ . ............ . . . . . ...... YES* D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION YES* E PUBLIC SERVICES ....... .................. ......................... .. .. . . ....... . NONE F. UTILITIES....... . . . . ....................... ... ......... ...... ...... . ... . . ...... . . YES* G. NOISE LEVELS ......... NONE* H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .............. ...... NONE I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS..................................... ... ....... YES* J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY . .... ..... .. ..................... .......... ... NONE K. PLANTLIFE . ..................................................................... YES* L ANIMAL LIFE............................... .. ..... . ........... . .... ... . . ...... . .. NONE* M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .... . . . .. . ... . . . . ..... . . . . .. NONE N. AESTHETIC . ...... . ... . . . . .. . . .. ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . NONE* O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE ................ ......... . ........... ......... ... . . . . .... . NONE P. OTHER Lighting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES* 111.STAFF RECOMMENDATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION 'SEE ATTACHED REPORT S/B•BS INITIAL STUDY ER 109-93 I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. Project Description A master plan for the development of the French Hospital "campus" has been submitted by Summit Health, the same corporation that owns the hospital. The word campus is used to describe the existing hospital property, the property developed with the Pacific Medical Plaza office building directly to the south of the hospital, and undeveloped properties to the west, north and southwest that are owned by Summit Health. Further development of the campus properties are proposed in phases. Phase I calls for the development of Building E, a 30,000 square-foot medical office building, on property located just south of the existing Pacific Medical Plaza. The applicant for this new building is Cambridge Healthcare Development Corporation. This phase also includes the development of additional parking on currently undeveloped property to the west of the hospital. Phase IA, which includes the reconfiguration of parking areas near the site's Lizzie Street entry and behind the hospital, would be developed concurrently with the Phase I medical office building and improvements. Phase H involves the development of future buildings and facilities. Building A, located to the north off of Fairview Street, would house some type of office use associated with the hospital, but not necessarily doctors' offices. Building B, located just north of the hospital, is proposed as a three-story, 35,000 square-foot medical office building. Building C, proposed near the front entry of the hospital, would be a 6,000 square-foot addition to the hospital as an obstetrics/gynecology center. The obstetrics/gynecology center would be built first (1994-5); other planned buildings would not be constructed for at least another five years. B. Project Entitlements Requested 1. Phase 1 - Medical Office Building (Building_El a. Planning Commission Use Permit (U 109-93)- is required to allow the addition of the medical office building to the site because of its O-S zoning, to allow a height variance (allow 45.5-foot structure where a 35-foot maximum height may be allowed) and to allow a 2% mixed use parking reduction. b. Architectural Review Commission (ARC 109-93) approval - design review of Phase I development - Building E and site development plans. J ER 109-93 Page 2 2. Phase 2 - Future Facilities a. General Plan Amendment/Rezoning (GP%R 109-93)- Change land use designation from Medium-Density Residential to Office for properties located at 1615 Fairview Street and 1250 Iris Street. Rezone the same two properties from R-2-S to O-S, Office with Special Considerations Overlay. Amend the zoning for the undeveloped property to the west of the hospital from O-PD to O-S. b. Street Abandonment (Aban 109-93)-Abandon portions of Church and Ruth Streets located in the far western part of the site. C. Environmental Setting The total area covered by the hospital's master plan is 17.2 acres. 9.6 acres is developed with the hospital and Pacific Medical Plaza and the remaining 7.6 acres is undeveloped. 1. Developed Portion of Hospital Property (1911 Johnson Avenue) The 6.2-acre site is developed with the hospital, parking lot and driveway areas and landscaping. The developed part of the hospital property is fairly flat, but there is a steep slope bank between Johnson Avenue and the front parking lot, and another steep slope bank between rear parking areas and the undeveloped property owned by the hospital to the west. French Hospital is a one- and two-story building licensed for up to 138 beds. Although it is located on a separate piece of property, it is linked by common driveways to the other medical properties to the immediate south. Surrounding land uses include the medical office buildings to the south, vacant land to the west, and residential uses to the north and east. 2. Pacific Medical Plaza (1941 Johnson Avenue) The Pacific Medical Plaza is a three-story medical office building located in between French Hospital and the Ella Street medical condominiums on a 3.4-acre site. 3. Undeveloped Portions of Hospital PropeML The undeveloped portions of the hospital's master planned area are generally located to the west of the hospital and bordered by the railroad on the northwestern property lines. These areas are described in the following paragraphs: � 'loGZ ER 109-93 Page 3 a. 1250 Iris Street -this 0.93-acre site is currently zoned R-2-S. Much of the western part of the site is contained within a creek area. Within the creek area is a steep bank which separates the creek channel from the bulk of the site. Another steep slope bank exists along the east property line. The remainder of the site is fairly flat. Most of the site's vegetation exists in the creek area. Several eucalyptus trees and a pepper tree are located near the site's east property line. b. Property to the west of the hospital - this 5.3-acre area is currently zoned O-PD. The area is lower in elevation than the developed portion of the hospital property and is separated from it by a steep slope bank. A helicopter pad is still visible, but no longer used. The same creek area described above is located on the southwest side. C. 1615 Fairview Street - this 1.4-acre site is currently zoned R-2-S and is located on a quiet cul-de-sac accessed via Breck Street from Johnson Avenue. The immediate neighborhood contains mostly apartment buildings. A house on the site was recently demolished after an arson fire. A mature stand of eucalyptus trees and a open drainage course are located on the south side of this area. II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW A. Community Plans and Goals Laid Use Element Phase I, which calls for the development of the 30,000 square-foot medical office building (Building E), is consistent with general plan policies that apply to medical offices which provide for them to be established in "specialized centers such as medical complexes" and allow "continued use and limited expansion of office areas outside the periphery of the Central Business District...when such areas...are based on an established group of offices" (Section C.3.b.(L) & (2.) of adopted LUE, pages 16-17). However, Phase II, which involves changing the land use designations of properties to the northwest at 1615 Fairview Street and to the southwest at 1250 Iris Street from Medium- Density Residential to Office, raises some issues in terms of general plan conformance which are discussed below: 1. Like the development of the new medical office building proposed in Phase I, the proposed amendments could be found consistent with the policies contained in Section C.3.b.(L) & (2.) of the adopted LUE which encourage centralization of /-� 3 ER 109-93 Page 4 functionally-related offices and expansion of offices in specialized centers such as medical complexes. 2. Professional Office Policy C.3.b.(4.) states that: 'The city should review all requests for conversion of residential uses to professional office activities to ensure their ability to adequately function as office uses, compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,..." Conclusion: May be significant. The ability of the two sites to be compatibly developed with adjacent residential uses is key to establishing whether the proposed general plan amendments are appropriate. The issue is whether the encroachment of office development into the two residential areas will create a significant adverse impact on the character of these neighborhoods. Offices may be considered conditionally compatible with residential uses subject to buffering treatments being a part of the physical site development plans. In addition, natural features of the site such as creeks, topography, vegetation or streets may provide a natural screen or buffer between properties. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council who will ultimately determine whether the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and consistent with the general plan. The land use compatibility issue is further evaluated in the Land Use section of this initial study. 3. Professional Office Policy C3.b.(6.) states that: 'Primary access to professional office activities should be provided from commercial arterial or collector streets and should avoid the use of local residential circulation." Primary access to the site will continue to be through the signalized intersection at Lizzie Street and Johnson Avenue. The southern entrance to the site, located off of Ella Street, opposite of Sierra Way, will remain and is not proposed to be modified. The most significant circulation addition to the plan is an internal driveway linking the main entrance off of Johnson Avenue with Fairview Street to the north. With the proposed rezoning of the two properties to the southwest at 1250 Iris Street and the north at 1615 Fairview Street, the issue becomes whether the land use change will introduce commercial traffic onto Iris Street, and its connections with Ella Street, and Fairview and Breck Streets, all currently functioning as local residential streets. Conclusion: May be significant. ER 109-93 Page 5 The property at 1250 Iris Street is proposed to be developed with additional parking lot areas. These new parking areas will be linked to the existing parking lots through internal driveways. No vehicular access, other than for emergency vehicles, from the project to Iris Street is proposed; therefore, commercial traffic generated by the project will not be directed to his Street or the other residential streets that are accessed from Ella Street. The following mitigation measure is recommended to reinforce the prohibition of project access to Iris Street in case the issue is raised again in the future. Mitigation Measure: ■ Vehicular access, other than for emergency vehicles, to the portion of the project site currently addressed as 1250 Iris Street, shall be prohibited. The property at 1615 Fairview Street is more complicated to evaluate in terms of consistency with the cited policy since a direct connection between the project and Fairview/Breck Streets is proposed. Although many will access the site through the hospital property via the signalized intersection at Lizzie Street and Johnson Avenue, vehicles may still choose to access the site from Breck Street. Vehicles accessing the site either via Breck Street or through the hospital will introduce commercial traffic onto residential streets. Conclusion: May be significant. Mitigation Measure: Consistency with Professional Office Policy C.3.b.(6.) could be achieved by: ■ Denying the request to rezone the property at 1615 Fairview Street from R-2-S to O-S and eliminating the need for the street connection from the site to Fairview Street (pedestrian and emergency access only); or ■ Reducing commercial traffic on residential streets to insignificant levels by adopting mitigation measures to restrict traffic. (This option is discussed in detail, along with areawide circulation issues and traffic impacts, in the Transportation and Circulation section of this initial study.) Housing Element Both sites with R-2-S zoning (1250 Iris Street, 1615 Fairview Street) have average cross slopes of approximately 13%, which allow a maximum density of 12 equivalent density units per net acre. Maximum densities would be 11.1 units for the site at 1250 Iris Street and 16.8 units for the site at 1615 Fairview Street. However, these maximum densities represent unit counts that.probably could not be realistically attained since both sites contain creek areas that reduce their buildable area and provide constraints to development to their full J ER 109-93 Page 6 potential. For example, the condominium project approved for 1250 Iris Street contained a total of 6 units and an equivalent density of 8.5. Housing Element policies attempt to preserve the existing housing stock and to provide a variety of housing types suitable to the different preferences and incomes of city residents. The proposals will not result in the removal of existing housing or the displacement of residents. However, with approval of the two general plan amendment/rezoning requests, the residential development potential for approximately 15 housing units will be lost. 15 housing units represent 1.6% of the existing vacant housing supply, 0.08% of the total existing housing supply, and about 8% of the total new dwellings expected to be built in one year in the 1990's, based on the City's Growth Management Ordinance. The project would not be consistent with policies which favor minimizing the conversion of residential land to non-residential uses, although the specific program language in the housing element that directly addresses the issue does not prohibit such rezonings: Program # 16 - Changes from residential to non-residential land use designations will be minimized Additionally, the requests when.viewed in a citywide context - the loss of the development potential of these two sites compared to the amount of land suitable for residential development within the city's planning area - will not have a significant impact on the city's existing and planned supply of housing. For example, page 24 of the Draft LUE dated February 1992 indicates that the three major expansion areas have a residential capacity of approximately 2,300 dwellings. Conclusion: The loss of housing stock is insignificant when considered from a citywide perspective. B. Population Distribution and Growth Since the site at 1250 his Street is proposed for parking and the undeveloped property to the west of.the hospital is already zoned for offices, the component of the project that has the most potential to create any population impacts is the development of the property at 1615 Fairview Street with office uses. The following discussion focuses on anticipated site occupancies associated with office development in comparison with residential development. The submitted master plan shows that the 1.4-acre site at 1615 Fairview Street would be eventually developed with Building A, a 6,000 square-foot office building. The City's Draft LUE uses an employment generation rate of 4 employees per 1000 square feet of floor area for offices. Using that employment generation rate, the new office building would house 24 workers. In addition, there would be clients and customers at the site during working hours and their numbers would vary based on the specific office use established. ER 109-93 Page 7 If the property were developed with 10 two-bedroom units under the present R-2-S zoning, the expected resident population would be 24 people, using the State Department of Finance's 1993 average household size of 2.4 persons. Conclusion: No significant population changes are expected with the proposed land use change at 1615 Fairview Street. The total number of projected workers is the same as anticipated residents. The character of the population would be different with a greater daytime population with offices and larger evening population with residences. It could be expected that the number of customers and clients associated with an office use would exceed the number of guests to be expected with residences. However, from an occupancy standpoint - the relative number of persons at the site at any one time - the differences with the two types of land uses are not significant. C. Land Use The change in land use for the property at 1250 Iris Street and its development as a parking lot will not result in significant adverse impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The site is naturally separated and buffered from the rest of the neighborhood by the creek area and the vegetation along it. The landscaped treatment along the street will provide a visual transition between the residential uses and the site and help screen parking. The limitation on access from the site to Iris Street will prevent traffic impacts to the adjacent neighborhood. The suitability of the change in land use for the property at 1615 Fairview Street is not as apparent. The proposal raises concerns with compatibility and traffic. Residences are not existing immediately adjacent to the proposed office building, but they are located directly across the street from the site. With the site's proposed O-S zoning, development of the property will require the processing of a Planning Commission use permit. Conditions of that use permit would presumably address compatibility types of issues including hours of operation, lighting and other limitations on office uses to reduce impacts. The project will introduce commercial traffic to a residential area which raises policy and quality of life issues for the adjacent neighborhood. Conclusion: May be significant. Mitization Measure: The Planning Commission and City Council must determine that the proposal is consistent with LUE policy by finding that: /n7 ER 109-93 Page 8 ■ Access to the site is from an arterial street, rather than a local residential street, given the project's proposed internal connection from Fairview/Breck Street to the signalized intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. This would include the determination that commercial traffic on Breck Street will be insignificant because most vehicles will find that the signalized intersection is more direct and easier to access. ■ Proposed mitigation measures restricting traffic on Breck Street discussed in the following Section D., Transportation and Circulation, will reduce traffic impacts to a level of insignificance. D. Transportation and Circulation Given the potential for traffic impacts associated with proposed further and future development of the hospital and adjacent properties, City staff required that a traffic analysis be submitted with project plans. The traffic analysis prepared by Gerald Skiles is incorporated into this study as Appendix A. 1. Trip Generation The traffic study concludes that estimated project trip generation for Phase I, the medical office building, will be 1,026 ADT. Future facilities will add 1,596 ADT. Taking into consideration that there will be some trips generated between on-site facilities, a total of 2,230 daily trips are estimated to be added to access streets with full development. The highest added volumes attributable to the project will be on Johnson Avenue north of Lizzie Street and the greatest increase in volumes over existing traffic levels will be for those segments of Ella Street between Johnson Avenue and project driveways. 2. Ipacts to Existing_Signalized Intersections The existing Level of Service (LOS)for the two signalized intersections closest to the project are LOS A for the Johnson Avenue/San Luis Drive intersection and LOS B for the Johnson Avenue/Lizzie Street intersection. With added traffic generated by the project, both the intersections will operate at LOS B. Conclusion: Not significant; the adjacent signalized intersections will comply with the City's acceptable level of service (LOS D or better). 3. Impacts to Johnson Avenue/Ella Street Intersection The Johnson Avenue/Ella Street intersection will have the highest percentage increase in side street traffic of the intersections analyzed in the traffic study. Along with increased �1 ER 109-93 Page 9 levels of traffic on Johnson Avenue, delays at the stop-controlled intersection will increase with the project. Conclusion: May be significant. The traffic study does not conclude that a traffic signal needs to be installed at the intersection with Phase I development. There are a number of different delay measurements that are used to determine whether traffic signal warrants are met. The traffic study concludes that"while side street delay will be increased, the quality of operation will be acceptable with addition of project traffic." However, the report qualifies these conclusions with the statement that "it is not possible to predict the effect of added volume with any certainty." Since there are uncertainties associated with delay measurements,actual traffic patterns may be different than those estimated in the report. That is the rationale for the Public Works Department's request for a letter of credit for the cost of a signal at the Johnson Avenue/Ella Street intersection to be deposited as a condition of project approval although actual signal installation prior to Phase I occupancy is not required. The City is further requesting that on-going monitoring with annual reports be done after Phase I occupancy to gauge whether traffic signal warrants are actually met. The report also recommends that striping changes to streets and timing mechanisms be added to signals to improve traffic flow in the vicinity of the hospital. Mitigation Measures: ■ The applicant shall mark Ella Street for through-left and right lanes at Johnson Avenue. ■ The applicant shall deposit a letter'of credit with the City for the cost of the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street. The letter of credit shall be held for a period of up to five years from complete campus build-out. The applicant shall provide annual reports to the City Engineer, prepared by a Civil Engineer or Traffic Engineer, during the time that the letter of credit is held, evaluating the need for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street. The traffic signal shall be designed to include an emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) and interconnect with the intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. ■ The applicant shall install an emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Streets. ER 109-93 Page 10 4. Project Street Access and Internal Circulation Plans indicate that the project driveway entry at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street will be modified to allow additional stacking area for vehicles on-site. Project parking in the vicinity of the entry has been reworked accordingly. These changes are proposed as part of Phase I development with construction of the medical office building. The Fire Department has noted that 360-degree fire apparatus access is required around the hospital and that minimum width of access driveways is 20 feet. The Fire Department has indicated concerns that parking areas and driveways depicted on project plans may not meet these minimum requirements. Conclusion: May be significant. Mitigation Measure: ■ The applicant shall submit a plan for the review and approval of the Fire Marshal indicating how minimum access requirements for emergency vehicles will be met without compromising other requirements for parking and landscaping. 5. Project Connection with Fairview/Breck Streets Plans show that the on-site driveway continuing from the Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street signalized intersection will be extended to provide access to Fairview/Breck Streets to the north. This connection is intended to tie hospital facilities with property it owns at 1615 Fairview Street. A general plan amendment/rezoning has been requested to change the land use and zoning from residential to office to allow for commercial development of the site with some type of facility related to the hospital. The concern for the introduction of commercial traffic to the existing residential neighborhood has been discussed previously on Pages 4-5 under Section'A., Community Plans and Goals, and Page 7 under Section C., Land Use, in this initial study. The issue is also evaluated in the submitted traffic study. The traffic study indicates that the planned connection to Fairview/Breck Street results in some undesirable impacts. Beyond the LUE policy conflict previously discussed, the connection raises concerns with traffic safety because of the poor sight distances at the Breck Street/Johnson Avenue intersection. Exiting movements from Breck Street to Johnson Avenue are both dangerous and disruptive to traffic flow on the arterial street. The report also points out that it is not a desirable circulation design to use a public street to connect parts of a project. Conclusion: May be significant. /-70 ER 109-93 Page 11 Mitigation Measures: ■ With review of a future use permit for development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street, the Planning Commission shall restrict office uses to those related to the hospital where minimal public access is required thereby decreasing traffic impacts. ■ With development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street, street access shall either be closed off entirely at the intersection of Breck Street and Johnson Avenue or limited to entry only to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. F. Utilities The normal level of demand for city water exceeds the safe yield of supplies. The city has responded by adopting measures to limit allocation of water to development, so a balance between safe yield and normal demand can be reached 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 proposed plan for sewering individual buildings will depend on their precise location on the site. Sewer lines are located in Johnson, Ella and Fairview Streets. Depending on the size and planned uses of individual buildings, it may be necessary to improve the capacity of existing sewer lines to assure adequate flow through the system. Conclusion: May be significant. Mitigation Measure: ■ The applicant shall submit precise plans and calculations for how individual buildings will be sewered to the approval of the Public Works and Utilities Directors. Improvements to the capacity of existing sewer mains may be needed. G. Noise Short-term Impacts There will be short-term noise impacts associated with construction that will affect nearby neighbors. Conclusion: Not significant. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. However, the provisions of the Noise Regulations that restrict construction to certain hours do apply (SLO Municipal Code Section 9.12.050 B.6.). l-7� ER 109-93 Page 12 Long-term Impacts The major sources of noise that affect the project are the Southern Pacific Railroad to the west and Johnson Avenue to the east. The Noise Contour Map included in the Draft Noise Element (1990) shows existing noise levels at the site to be less than 60 decibels (DB) Ldn (average day/night exposure level over a 24-hour period). With build-out of the City, most of the site will fall within the 60 DB Ldn contour, but an increased portion of the western edge of the site adjacent to the railroad tracks will fall between the 60 and 65 DB Ldn contours. Most of the area of the site where noise levels will be loudest are proposed to be developed with parking areas. Building A, proposed on the.northern property located off of Fairview Street, has the most potential to be affected by increased noise levels. Conclusion: Not significant. Figure 1-2, a chart included in the City's adopted Noise Element (1975), provides compatibility guidelines in terms of acceptable noise levels for various types of land uses. For hospitals, the normally acceptable range is between 60-65 Ldn and for offices the normally acceptable range is 65-75 Ldn. Therefore, proposed project facilities including Building A will be located to fall within acceptable noise level ranges for the proposed uses. Standard building construction techniques can be used to conform to the adopted 45 Ldn for interior noise. I. Air Quality and Wind Conditions Short-term Impacts During project construction, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy duty construction equipment. Conclusion: May be significant. Mitigation Measure: ■ Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, all graded surfaces shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of that project's construction: ER 109-93 Page 13 a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active areas); b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph; C. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph; d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported on-site or off-site; e. Watering material stockpiles; f. Periodic washdowns, or mechanical streetsweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the construction site; and g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work. h. Scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions. Long-term Impacts Increased traffic associated with planned facilities will incrementally increase the pollutants in the air. Conclusion: Cumulatively significant. Mitigation Measure: ■ The applicant shall update the approved parking management plan to provide a trip reduction program that contains a comprehensive list of actions to reduce auto use to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The plan shall include the following additional measures: a. Provide lockable bicycle storage for the office portions of the proposed medical facilities consistent with the office standards specified in the Bicycle Transportation Plan (June 1993). b. Include showers and lockers in the project to encourage employees to ride bicycles or walk to work. C. Provide preferential parking places (closer to building entries) for employees who carpool. 1- 73 ER 109-93 Page 14 d. Expand incentive program to include employees who bicycle or walk to work. K. Plant Life A survey of the vegetation located on properties included in the master plan was prepared by Malcolm Mc Leod Ph.D. and is incorporated into this study as Appendix B. The survey discusses two specific areas of the site with denser vegetation in more detail and then generally discusses vegetation found on the remainder of the site. The first area discussed in detail is a fairly steeply sloping ravine area located to the north and the west of proposed Building B. The whole area is covered by a canopy of eucalyptus trees. The eucalyptus trees are the dominant plant form of the area because of the shading their canopies provide and the allelopathic chemicals, associated with tree droppings such as bark, branches, fruit and leaves, which inhibit the growth of other plants that they come in contact with. Native plants found in the area include toyon, arroyo willows, poison oak and coast live oak. The second specific area is the creek area located along the western edge of the property. Eucalyptus trees again dominate, but there is also a grouping of live oak trees. Native plants in this area are generally in better condition than in the first area. No rare, endangered or sensitive plants were found in the two areas where the detailed studies were done. Most of the open areas between the hospital and the two areas described are covered with annual introduced grasses. Plans for master plan development in general do not result in the removal of significant trees or other plants. However, grading operations need to be carefully conducted to prevent excess soil from sloughing off into sensitive creek and ravine environments on the site and possibly disturbing or killing existing trees and plants. These areas should also be protected from the possibility of future development. Conclusion: May be significant. Mitigation Measures: ■ Protective fencing shall be installed prior to, and maintained in place until conclusion of, grading and development of parking lot areas to prevent excess soil from sloughing off into sensitive creek and ravine environments on the site. ■ To insure maintenance of the mature trees on the site, the heavily wooded portions not to be used for parking and/or building pads should be maintained as permanent open space easements. �-Ty ER 109-93 Page 15 L Animal Life The creek area provides habitat to wildlife, mainly birds, but also amphibians, small reptiles and mammals, and insects. Conclusion: Not significant. Proposed buildings and improvements will be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the top of creek bank. No modifications are proposed to the creek channel. Therefore, no further mitigation is required. N. Aesthetics The proposed 30,000 square-foot medical office building will be located to the south and west of the existing Pacific Medical Plaza and will be 45.5 feet high. The new building will be freestanding, but will have a common entry area with the existing office complex. The height and scale of the building make its siting a factor in terms of minimizing visual impacts. Conclusion: Not significant. The relative flatness of the footprint area and the proximity to the existing medical complex are factors that will minimize visual and compatibility issues. Specific features of building design to minimize the apparent mass of the building will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. P. Lighting Parking lot facilities are planned to cover most of the western part of the project site. These areas are somewhat buffered from adjacent residential uses by the vegetation in the creek area, but there is the potential for glare from parking lot lighting to impact nearby residences. Conclusion: May be significant. Mitigation Measure: ■ Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto adjacent properties. The specific design of lighting shall be to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. The ARC shall carefully review the height and type of lighting fixtures. ER 109-93 Page 16 III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that a negative declaration be prepared for this project with noted mitigation measures incorporated into the project. If the Community Development Director determines that the mitigation measures outlined in this initial study are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures. /- 76 ER 109-93 Page 17 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER 109-93 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES & MONITORING PROGRAM In conformance with AB 3180, the following mitigation measures will be monitored as indicated below: 1. Vehicular access, other than for emergency vehicles, to the portion of the project site currently addressed as 1250 Iris Street, shall be prohibited. Monitoring: The restriction on access shall become a condition of the use permit approving the master plan. 2. Consistency with Professional Office Policy C3.b.(6.) could be achieved by: a. Denying the request to rezone the property at 1615 Fairview Street from R- 2-S to O-S and eliminating the need for the street connection from the site to Fairview Street; or b. Reducing commercial traffic on residential streets to insignificant levels by adopting mitigation measures to restrict traffic. 3. The Planning Commission and City Council must determine that the proposal is consistent with LUE policy by finding that: a. Access to the site is from an arterial street, rather than a local residential street, given the project's proposed internal connection from Fairview/Breck Street to the signalized intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. This would include the determination that commercial traffic on Breck Street will be insignificant because most vehicles will find that the signalized intersection is more direct and easier to access. b. Proposed mitigation measures restricting traffic on Breck Street outlined in Mitigation Measures 10 and 11 will reduce traffic impacts to a level of insignificance. 1-77 ER 109-93 Page 18 Monitoring The Planning Commission and City Council will need to weigh the pros and cons of the proposed driveway access through the site from Johnson Avenue to Fairview/Breck Street in terms of general plan policy and adopt appropriate mitigation measures and conditions to assure consistency. 4. The applicant shall mark Ella Street for through-left and right lanes at Johnson Avenue. S. The applicant shall deposit a letter of credit with the City for the cost of the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street. The letter of credit shall be held for a period of up to rive years from complete campus build-out. The applicant shall provide annual reports to the City Engineer, prepared by a Civil Engineer or Traffic Engineer, during the time that the letter of credit is held, evaluating the need for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street. The traffic signal shall be designed to include an emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) and interconnect with the intersection at Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Street. 6. The applicant shall install an emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Lizzie Streets. MonitoripZL The City Engineer shall confirm that all traffic mitigations have been successfully fulfilled and/or completed prior to building permit issuance for Phase I development (Building E). 7. The applicant shall submit a plan for the review and approval of the Fire Marshal indicating how minimum access requirements for emergency vehicles will be met without compromising other requirements for parking and landscaping. Monitoring: The Fire Marshal, by reviewing project plans during architectural review and building permit plan check, will confirm that access complies with City standards. 8. With review of a future use permit for development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street, the Planning Commission shall restrict office uses to those related to the hospital where minimal public access is required thereby decreasing traffic impacts. 1�7$ ER 109-93 Page 19 Monitoring;. With the proposed O-S zoning of the site, a Planning Commission use permit would be processed prior to any uses being established at the site. If the rezoning is supported, then this mitigation measure would also become a condition of master plan approval. 9. With development of the site at 1615 Fairview Street, street access shall either be closed off entirely at the intersection of Breck Street and Johnson Avenue or limited to entry only to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Monitoring; Specific measures to limit access from Johnson Avenue to Breck Street would become part of use permit conditions for the development of the property at 1615 Fairview Street. 10. The applicant shall submit precise plans and calculations for how individual buildings will be sewered to the approval of the Public Works and Utilities Directors. Improvements to the capacity of existing sewer mains may be needed. Monitoring Each new building proposed on the master plan will require processing of a Planning Commission use permit and architectural review. The Public Works and Utilities Directors will review plans submitted with applications for these entitlements and establish specific requirements for sewer service. 11. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, all graded surfaces shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of that project's construction.- a. onstruction:a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active areas); b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph; C. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph; d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported on-site or off-site; ER 109-93 Page 20 e. Watering material stockpiles; f. Periodic washdowns, or mechanical streetsweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the construction site; and g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work. h. Scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions. Monitorine• Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Development Department staff through field inspections during project construction. 12. The applicant shall update the approved parking management plan to provide a trip reduction program that contains a comprehensive list of actions to reduce auto use to the Community Development Director for review and approval. The plan shall include the following additional measures: a. Provide lockable bicycle storage for the office portions of the proposed medical facilities consistent with the office standards specified in the Bicycle Transportation Plan (June 1993). b. Include showers and lockers in the project to encourage employees to ride bicycles or walk to work C. Provide preferential parking places (closer to building entries) for employees who carpool. d. Expand incentive program to include employees who bicycle or walk to work Monitoring City Community Development Department, or Public Works Traffic Division, staff would monitor the trip reduction program annually until the County APCD sets up an independent monitoring program. 13. Protective fencing shall be installed prior to, and maintained in place until conclusion of, grading and development of parking lot areas to prevent excess soil from sloughing off into sensitive creek and ravine environments on the site. ER 109-93 Page 21 Monitoring: Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Development Department staff through field inspections during project construction. 14. To insure maintenance of the mature trees on the site, the heavily wooded portions not to be used for parking and/or building pads should be maintained as permanent open space easements. Monitoring The requirement for the open space easements shall become a condition of master plan approval. 15. Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto adjacent properties. The specific design of lighting shall be to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. The ARC shall carefully review the height and type of lighting fixtures. Monitoring: The ARC shall review specific proposals for parking lot lighting as part of specific plans for each proposed building and associated parking. 16. If the Community Development Director determines that the above mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures. ' O / Gerald W. Skiles APPENDIX A CONSULTING TRAFFIC ENGINEER 4855 Windsor Boulevard Cambria,California 93428 (805)927-8453 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FRENCH HOSPITAL CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Prepared For RRM Design Group 3026 South Higuern Street San Luis Obispo, California October 22, 1993 Prepared By Gerald W. Skiles Consulting Traffic Engineer W. r\ Exp. 3/95 CONTENTS Summary 1 Project Description and Purpose of Study 2 Project Setting and Access 2 Access Streets 5 Present Traffic Operations 6 Planned Improvements 7 Trip Generation, Medical Office Building 7 Trip Generation, Future Campus Expansion 8 Trip Distribution and Assignment 9 Traffic Volume Comparisons 10 Signalized Intersection Capacity Impacts 12 Intersection Capacity Impacts, Johnson Avenue-Ella Street 12 Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation, Johnson Avenue-Ella Street 14 Project Street Access and Internal Circulation 15 Cumulative Traffic From Other Pending Developments 16 Mitigation Measures 17 APPENDIX Cno+- tncluded in .packe_s , availablo 'in pi.0 .it ER 10q-q3 for review) .TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FRENCH HOSPITAL CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Summary The proposed medical office building, the first phase in the planned French Hospital Campus Master Plan expansion, will generate slightly more than 1,000 vehicle trips a day. Future facilities will attract an additional 1,600 vehicle movements. Allowing for movements between facilities, a total of 2, 230 daily trips are estimated to be added on access streets with full development. Assuming an arrival-departure pattern similar to that observed for present traffic, the medical office building would add 4% to the peak hour traffic volume at the. heavy volume point on Johnson Avenue just north of the main entrance. Future development would add another 5% to the peak period volume. The present satisfactory level of service on Johnson Avenue could be maintained if the two existing traffic signals are interconnected and upgraded as now planned by the City. The project applicant could contribute to the cost of that improvement as a mitigation measure. Estimated project traffic will increase the peak hour volume on Ella Street ,at Johnson Avenue 27% in the first phase and 40% for the full development. Delay measurements indicate that operation may be satisfactory with only minor changes (striping, parking control) , despite the appreciable increase in side street traffic. However, it is not possible to estimate future delay levels with certainty, and additional controls might be necessary. Traffic volumes on Ella Street at Johnson Avenue now satisfy at least one of the accepted warrants for traffic signals, but delay to movements to and from the side street during the maximum volume hour is less than it would be with traffic signal control . A determination as to the need for traffic signals should be made after completion of the medical office building. Evaluation of signal system operation with a computer model indicated that an acceptable timing plan can be developed with a signal added at Ella Street if interconnected with the existing signals on Johnson Avenue. Project traffic is not expected to impact the light-volume residential streets in the vicinity of the hospital , with exception of the potential addition of traffic on Breck Street. From a policy standpoint, a connection should be provided on the site between Future Facility B and other facilities in lieu of using Breck Street-Fairview Avenue for internal movements (unless Facility B will have a use not related to other site facilities) . Because of the poor sight distances at Breck Street-Johnson Avenue, the planned driveways should be deleted and replaced with an emergency access , or should be designed and controlled to discourage use of Breck Street for traffic entering Johnson Avenue. 1 Proiect Description and-Purpose of Study The project is the proposed development of additional facilities at the French Hospital medical care complex under a long-range plan , the French Hospital Campus Master Plan. The additional facilities include expansion of the existing hospital , construction of a new medical office building, and future construction of two additional buildings. Development will take place over a period of years. Only the new medical office building will be constructed initially. A time schedule has not been identified for construction of the other facilities. However, City approval of the Master Plan is being requested at this time, as well as approval of the medical office building. The purpose of this study was to identify the traffic impacts of development and to recommend appropriate mitigation measures for: a. construction of the medical office building (30 ,000 SF) , and b. future development of other facilities included in the master plan. Project Setting and Access The French Hospital site is located in the City's High School/Johnson Planning District, on the west side of Johnson Avenue at and near Lizzie Street. ' Figure 1 shows the site location and the area street system. Figure 2 is the conceptual site plan for the master plan develop- ment, and shows locations of individual components of the French Hospital Campus, existing and proposed. The new medical office building will be constructed in an area now used primarily for parking. The two future buildings and parking area expansion will be in a presently undeveloped portion of the site. The site has irregular boundaries. There is existing access to Johnson Avenue (one driveway, the main entrance) and Ella Street (two driveways) . The site has frontage on Breck Street, Fairview Avenue, Ruth Street and Iris Street, as well. The property borders the Southern Pacific Company railroad right of way on the west (the true west side of the site) . Most of the surrounding area is residential, except for a former junior high school site off Lizzie Street now used for an adult school, private elementary and junior high school and other activities, and excluding development on Johnson Avenue north and south of the site. The County General Hospital and other medical- Johnson Avenue is on a northwest-southeast alignment , but for ease of reference in this report, it is assumed to run north-south, with the intersecting cross streets being east-west. All references to cardinal directions follow that convention. 2 A �' UDE T PLACE OP SERE �+I� T FNEDERI ! ,, 0�E W sT ♦,p MEINEC E AVE A �' lO • i STAFFOR •m <i 1p0 ! $i i a 0 1 w < W a assortsr O URAAT STREET 1 WILSON ST < DRIVE 'm a Mme ••m •m iAFT DARFIEl09r yO� a \77'NNO� ISSIpM b EET LIaW : r C IA(CR6b atm qA}. � � 4 = P ♦t 1 i • P f PE YfILAlI .PHI IRS LNC O ' t { E S' 'v TIE P tt� a Wp4. 9 40 b� O PFACH O b T• KqY R O T VIEW r S� 9 'OS 51' up 6 J pr A y� �O ( b1p EOy ♦ 4 WV. 40 C p Ir 4, �P�q°5 ,•s y�Pt� O `p9 q ,b1 qA •� r iT �qp Ooq PF'� ♦� O ♦pta ' PROJECT SITE P s 0 011NOR&V e t�pt F°J t tEL `aPt `' bI E D 101 b G s 1[ O s �O 4� P +` � 5Pt `pLS OPp S' d'P� i7•► t44 b Si Ply t41 q �E `b1 � • qY aIE C'y�t�+ u04 SO!_STREET • m a Y O I O E �q 4q g a'p Gt•°P• t ► � qty.4 4i a q1„ GE P O W RACHEL$ COURT CPW LO O .►� f•EL dr FRPR• OGOOPOIF AA [AII ERCOCR m e 1 2'"l. 2 c m a FIDAW pt V TLP1 �� 6LP qE� t1f `p a a O < O m m J b► G►P OPt{ m 2 ROUXD• YI If-I cPp WO ba OP P O +r E y. < m E m OF'P P F ! 1 O r m 60UTN STREET 9 7 Oq f4 GO,tW 1r' 1 p Fe o°n W ---I .o W�Rr m m Z FUN ON PV'OP� m � CIAWCORRIDA DAV! �Q � ` lT SWOODSRIDOE p10p1/ WJh O� f a W. CAUDILL y 1Pi 9 ; ! S OlrH �.. < OP WP, ``E�A`•PP� y,h Ot "Wp v _ �A EOM/Y LOS A4M09 COURT 2 O " J MRCHELL ORWE �PF'P Gt} - O 0 oo O PJ t�� T1 OAIYE G J LOS FELQ COURT {i ` m •T:�'r. �� a Ag- a I s O J 2!LAW R NCE DRIVE J E`ZOL MOA SON tT <E R 10 OR 0 O HA MiANAAV CT A'yA' 7 S gL �sL�'TLOt a �OtO OpVO ?1 O win O pa 04 = m 2P`0. P 2 s W pOe rY pi. 4 CT m� v wm ^ i TE'P P r 2 Jp 6 a O AN, TrRrM u V J < J 3 O TLty 7 i o 20 M 000 r� O S3 C RT rrr M S� qo 7_ 40 < 2 C f 9 O 09 <r > 7 G G 2.0 WU W Y t <CALL UPITA A,E1� • GARIrAGAE1r OLT e Y R01O Ar•Ir r,.� q1'E 009 t 01 •R1 G0 ROAD W FIGURE 1 •� PROJECT LOCATION AND AREA STREET SYSTEM 3 -8,g 1.7.7wic 11173 ------ I'T 1 71 tp =ice U 1�ji I Ej r,J Z5 rZNZ 4 133815 Sful is GAL W., LE al tic �37 z --- ----------------- - ------------------- ------------- ------- --- ........... �N I I I I rr�,W n L,9 L) j° \ (l d I I!!I roi:!fl - �a I I I f'��\\' .\\y' /• , fiy,',�"`'� - i 1111 i 0 u I pq I�7�i L7 i I L 4v a 14; 171 TTFIT ^i -I.:: FIGURE 2 PROJECT SITE PLAN 4 /`o I APPENDIX B City of San Luis Obispo June 10. 1993. Planning Department 990 Palm San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 Froue A alaolni G. McLeod Ph.D. 2122 Loomis st. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Introduction I was retained by REM Design Group to perform a Review of On-Site Vegetation for the French Hospital Master Plan. The review was to include the following: 1. Review the(2)identified areas of concern in detail and describe the existing conditions; types of vegetation present, condition of vegetation, identify sensitive species, if any. 'L Review the Site Plan and determine if any significant adverse impacts may occur as a result of project implementation and describe the impacts. 3. Recommend appropriate mitigation measures for any identified adverse impacts. In discussion of the vegetation, the system presented by Robert F. Holland in. Holland. Robert F. 1986, fi&k2kaCvLk rrip&dwoftheTb-zw&ialNa&Ta/ (.ianmrmilr otY.'a/ifcamf:�.is used. Identification of plants utilizes;Hoover, Robert F. 1970, Z7 e 11.kscv1arF1.w.6 afS w Luis OGisM Carm[f; (..Z&Arnm.with corroboration cohere necessary from; Hicinnan.James C. 1993, 2heJgww Aff:4nual,ffioe-Flaw&of ( elifarnitL cultivated plant information is from Bailey L.H. 1949, Mwualaf (1rltiv.`tAVf`laatsand Editors of Sunset Books 1979. 11i -ff&tom Garden Book Rare plant information is f-orn personal knowledge, from;Smith and Berg 1988, fnva7Aary ofAare.wd£r7dgSmV hkxularPlaatsofCalif5miaed.4 and from:Skinner et. al.. 1993.IDr.a71 'afRvrandEadaZmr Ed higt?larPlw&afCalffcrnia.ed. 5 in ed. The references to points of the compass are as related to reference north of the Conceptual Site Plan dated June 1, 1993,rather than true north. Vegetation There are two areas of concern as far as the vegetation is concerned in the French Hospital Master Plan.The fust of these is the area west of the Future Hospital Facility A and south of the southern end of Breck Street. It includes a small canyon and the area above it to the east to the dense tree line as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan.The second area of concern is the area of a small canyon south of the existing French Hospital and west of Iris Street.This area of concern includes the area inside(west and north of)the property line. This property line extends from Iris Street westto the middle of the canyon from whence it extends south to Ruth Street and west along the north side of Ruth Street. The vegetation of the area of the site of the Future Hospital Facility A and the proposed parking lot on the gently sloping area ncrth. west,south and southeast of the Future Hospital Facility A will also be described. Vegetation of Areas of Concern French Hospital Master Plan M port First Area of Concern The area west of the Future Hospital Facility A and south of the southern end of Breck Street from the dense tree line westward into the canyon includes much of the proposed parking lot The large trees which form the dense treeline in this area of concern are mostly blue gum eucalyptus (Erravjipfusg7bb&us)with a few trees of another species (EffaT ptussrd&unica7 ) at the northeast end of this line. The whole area of the canyon from the tree line westward is covered by the canopy of the eucalyptus trees. Some of these were obviously planted as they are arranged in a row. Others apparently have grown from seed or suckers of the planted ones.One large multi-trunked blue gum tree has fallen recently and is mostly dead. The vegetation is rather sparse under the trees. There are several reasons for this. The dense shade excludes sunlight The bark of the blue gums falls periodically and small branches fruits and leaves of both species of eucalyptus cover the ground. All of these plant parts contain allelopathic chemicals.These chemicals inhibit the growth of other plant species with which they come in contact The eucalyptus form the dominant vegetational feature of the canyon There are a few species of plants which have been introduced to the site which have been able to survive the difficult growing conditions. These include several cotoneaster((.i> mvoorJac7�xx)plants and fewer firethorns (fjTe7aw&a axmm). There are two California black walnuts along the northwest side of the stream which have apparently escaped from cultivation. Among plants native to the area which have survived is toyon(Helmsides arbv&hlG.v)along the upper banks of the canyon.Along the stream which empties fi-mi the drainage pipe there are a number of arroyo willows (S'a&rAsie%pis) and two cottonwoods (Pap&Lrs&Ahmarpa). There is one small coast live oak on the southeast bank of the canyon west of the southern corner of the Future Hospital Facility A There is poison oak(Tar mdmdrw divasilo =)in several places in the canyon. There are no rare,endangered or sensitive plants in the first area of concern. Second Area of Concern The second area of concern. the area of a small canyon south of the existing French Hospital and west of Iris Street is similar in orientation to the canyon of the fust area of concern. Disturbance here has been of a slightly different nature. It appears that blue gum trees have not been planted but rather have been introduced into this canyon by inadvertent transport of seed. The blue gums are the dominant vegetaimal feature of the canyon but there are approximately ten mature coast live oaks which form a major understory in the northeast part of the canyon.There are tcn,ms and myote bush(&3coiarispilal3ris)which grow more vigorously than shrubs in the other canyon. There are more willows(Sa&rlasjohpis)growing along the stream banks in this canyon than in the other.There is much poison oak growing particularly in the northeast part of the canyon. Overall the native vegetation is in much better condition in the second area of concern than in the first area of concern. A number of exotic plants have apparently been introduced from the yard of the house adjacent to the property on Iris Street or elsewhere. These plants include firethorn. cotmeaster and bamboo(Bambrlsasp.). Tree mallow(Lavalaua aa-szngw&A ra)is also found at Iris Street in the corner of the property. Tree mallow is native to the islands off the coast of southern California, but has been introduced French Hospital Master Plan McLeod,Report �-fig here. Canary Island palms (Phoffy;ra narimsis)grow along the stream bank in the northeastern part of the canyon. There are no rare, endangered or sensitive plants in the second area of concern. Vegetation of the Area outside the Areas of Concern The area which will be covered by Future Hospital Facility A and the parking lot is one where disturbance has occurred over many years. The major portion of this area is covered with annual introduced grasses. These grasses consist largely of wild oats(.4ca7afafua) interspersed by other annual grasses suds as rye grass (Lalitan mzrJ&JJcrww). Bermuda grass (()vadum darnYb7)has became established in the area west of the cul-de-sac of Iris Street There is fennel (Fte:z calwn n4kare)amongst the grasses in this same area. In the area south of Future Hospital A which will have parking spaces at a 45 degree angle to those of the rest of the lot there is one blue gum eucalyptus toward the south and two bottle brushes (Afelalmm e-icifolia) and a pepper tree(Schmasmalle) toward the northwest.There is one native coast live oak (QmraL-sapifbha)approximately over the drainage pipe opposite the end of Breck Street. There is a roadway which has been worn through the middle of the area which extends from Iris Street westward to a point south of the Future Facility A From that point it extends northward to the north limit of the properhy near Breck Street. It is vegetated by plants which can survive where the soil is hard packed and conditions are dry through much of the year. These plants are ones that have been brought in by the various activities of man. These are called ruderal plants. They include knotweed (Pah,vwurm.vw2as&=), plantain (FJwbgvhwcw&b), filaree(Erzdmw iYaitirnw)and wild mustard(Brassir B4m). Possible Adverse Impacts as a Result of Project Implementation First Area of Concern Impacts to the vegetation of the first area of concern will entail removal of a clump of small blue gurus at the northeast extreme of the dense tree line. It will also apparently require the removal of the sideroxylon eucalyptus trees and several of the mature blue gums. The native vegetation of the area will apparently not be adversely impacted. It is all to the west of the area which will be developed in to a parking lot. The arroyo willows in the area of the outlet of the drainage pipe are the closest of the native plants to an area of parking lot development. Removal of the large blue gums could actually have a beneficial effect on the native plants under them because of the removal of the shading effect and the source of the allelopathic litter. The only possible adverse effect of the implementation of the project would be the pushing of soil or other debri into the canyon during the grading process for the parking lot. Second Area of Concern The project as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan will not intrude into the second area of concern.The only possible adverse impacts would be the pushing of soil or other debri from the area of the parking lot just above the rim of the canyon, into the canyon. The drainage of water from the area of the parking lot should not change the amount of water which enters the canyon to any significant extent. Vegetation of the Area outside the Areas of Concern French Hospital Master Plan McLeod art. . ��%3 No significant adverse impacts will occur in this area with the Implementation of the Project. The one coast live oak opposite the end of Breck Street is in an area which apparently will not be affected by the development of the parking lot. Mitigation The only mitigation measure which should be taken for either area of concern is in the grading process. Grading should be done in such a way as to prevent the pushing of soil or otter debri into the canyons. This is particularly important in the second area of concern because of the steep bank of the canyon near the boundary of the parking Jot. If additional mitigation measures are deemed necessary, the removal of eucalyptus trees from areas where they are impacting the native vegetation should be considered. Plants Found an the Site Genus and Species Common Name 4mGrr2siapEsilasdic . ...... ..........western ragweed-n' Artdnisia dmeasii.................mugwort-e .•trwafa&w..............................._......wild oats-e coyote bush-n 1`smfi�3 s�....... ......._._.........._....bamboo-e Bragiia?nigm........................black mustard-e [.ia►t�dr�iasPlla3na...._._._..._._.....Pampas grass-e Co&vmglrrlad�vs..........................cotoneaster-e CiDar.;sc -0=rs..............................artichoke-e Giaodr 7 d.3cOlhn.............................Bermuda grass-e L_'rpe usaltawAhlimos......._...............umbrella plant-e Lri��cr JirllcaQrm�...........................teasel-e fralimn cicuhariron.........................filaree-e ZkAq yac zja L-liXimim...................California poppy-n &rnk1rp&wph &zrs----.---_.---.-.-.blue gum eucalyptus-e ELrnz3 iptrrssida=,1h7....................eucalyptus-e Fhmiml, do c,&Sm;r -_----._-...----fennel-e ll. dia sgrratmsa.........................golden bush-n Hcd'rraha6ix..........................ivy-e JI4Wl.ws azlifa-Aiai w.hindsii.....California black walnut-e here Lec&1m.Qyria/a._._...._._._._._........prickly lettuce-e LamA9rB azwSw&fo/ia..............tree mallow-e here Aalm,ai is.------..---..._..-...._cheeseweed-e Aetala=a-idfn/is..........................bottle brush-e Otalis pes-a?prae.............................oxalis-e Phc�ntrc�nariersis_._....... .... .....Canary Island palm-e Fhilano&ff&-a......................lippia-e PirrLs�xhiaides...........................:._bristly me tongue-e French Hospital Master Plan McLeod port Folvem Lan armas&=....................knotweed-e Pq;uft&kbaaupB.........................cottonwood n ATv=40.7 axmtw.........................firetham-e 4wars BgrYa&?..............................coast live oak n R,7bUS VrSh=.................................wild blackberry-n R=eraispus.................................Curly dock-e Sal&lasioltpiF.................................arrcyowillow-n Sb'kzzymolle...................................pepper tree-e 5PffgzU:2rI;2 M.Irk.9..........................sand spmiw-n Tatibodm&m dimmdoh=..........poison oak-n TrRgORSM7 par77kJiu-v...................salsify-e f-7 a sa&va....................................vetch-e n' indicates native, e* indicates exotic or introduced. French Hospital Master Plan McLeod ort ,,,Vj ' 5 ' 17111 ARC Minutes October 18, 1993 Page 4 3. ARC 109-93: 1941 Johnson Avenue. A request for schematic review of plans for a 30,000 square foot medical office building and conceptual review of a master plan for the future development of the French Hospital "campus"; O-S zone; Cambridge Healthcare, applicant. Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the commission grant schematic approval to the new office building and provide comments on the master plan. Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group, introduced Chris Ford and Mark Marney of RRM; Lindsey Quackenbush of Cambridge Healthcare; and Jim Youree of French HospitaL Mr. Montgomery described the current property ownership and components of this requested project. He also discussed past project approvals and the reason for the master plan approach. He described the existing common driveway easements. He responded to the issue of building siting and noted the one of the reasons included proximity to other facilities. He indicated that the hospital wanted to see an OB/GYN facility constructed sooner than the other future buildings. He spoke at length about the Fairview Street/hospital driveway connection and discussed issues with pathway development and ADA requirements. Commr. Underwood asked about the idea of a more "residential' office development on the Fairview Street site. Chris Ford said that Building E was sited as proposed to allow it to be connected to other existing facilities. He noted that the building size was the most feasible development with the space involved. He also noted that the standing seam metal roof would coordinate the new building with the existing structures. He indicated that roofing could also be changed over the hospital entry. He presented schematic colors ideas and described the internal circulation of the buildings in relation to the north and east entries. Commr. Joines was concerned with the exterior elevations in terms of looking "hospital generic." �- 93 ARC Minutes October 18, 1993 Page 5 Chris Ford felt that the standing seam metal roofing accentuates the curved transition between the buildings. He felt the proposed preliminary colors accentuated building character. Victor Montgomery added that they needed to work with the existing buildings and their associated constraints. He said it was not feasible to completely remodel all three buildings. Mark Marney indicated that the plan utilized existing trees and the parking was designed to transition between the different topographical levels. He noted that trees were selected to maximize solar access and serve functional purposes. Commr. Combrink questioned which trees would be removed. He wanted to see specific trees and their status on final plans. Victor Montgomery indicated that the tile roof over the hospital entry would be changed as well. Jim Aiken, 1245 Ella Street, was impressed with the master plan. He asked how much parking was being added with the Phase I development. He expressed concerns with the added traffic and impacts to Ella Street and Johnson Avenue. He had to objection to the proposed building height. He would like to see the pedestrian access maintained from Iris Street and asked whether helicopter access would continue. Victor Montgomery responded that it would not continue. Brent Wiese, 1662 Fairview, appreciated ARC concerns with the entry off of Johnson Avenue and other circulation issues. He supported a height variance. He felt that office use was appropriate at the Fairview Street site. He wanted to see the open space retained and bicycle access provided from Fairview Street to the railroad and the other side of town. He felt that vehicles should be discouraged from exiting from Breck Street onto Johnson Avenue. Victor Montgomery discussed the City's bicycle path requirements and what they were willing to provide. Commr. Combrink supported schematic approval of Building E. His main concerns with the master plan were the buffer treatments between land uses. He wanted to see the residential zoning maintained. He was most concerned with the commercial development of the Fairview site. He noted that the gully and vegetation provided a ARC Minutes October 13, 1993 Page 6 natural buffer benveen the hospital and northern site. He wanted to see pedestrian pathways from Iris to Fairview. He felt the pathway in the open space area can remain natural. He also had a concern with traffic on Johnson Avenue. Commr. Reiger expressed concerns with the internal circulation highlighted on page 7 of the staff report. Chairman Illingworth also agreed that this was a major issue. He thought the porte- cochere location was confusing at the northwest corner of the hospital. Commr. Joines asked if a parking structure had been considered. Commr. Reiger questioned where patient vs. employee parking would be located. Victor Montgomery explained that more remote parking would be set aside for staff and closer parking for patients. He indicated that parking structures were not feasible because of space required and topographical changes. Commr. Regier supported Building E location, design, and materials. He also supported the Fairview Street use and the idea of a building, but indicated that access was still a concern. Commr. Joines was concerned that there is a conflict between providing pathways and meeting ADA standards. She suggested the applicant look at providing a parking structure. She felt that pedestrian circulation should be encouraged with surface lot development. She felt that the Fairview structure needs to be residential in character. She supported the Building E footprint. Commr. Underwood felt that the adjoining residential development needed to be looked at with the Fairview site. He noted that circulation is a concern and that the idea of an interior street should be explored (differentiate from other parking aisles). He. wanted the parking near Building E and the MRI unit simplified. He suggested providing better linkages with the north entry to the building. He supported the architecture, height, and materials proposed, including the metal roofing. He felt that a providing a parking structure was a possibility. Chairman Illingworth liked the siting of Building E. He noted that his main concerns were with parking and circulation issues. He felt that a parking structure would add another building to the site which has drawbacks. He indicated that cleaner and simpler circulation is desirable. He thought the new porte-cochere was confusing. He supported ARC Minutes October 18, 1993 Page 7 parking on both sides of the internal driveways. He was not sure about rezoning the Fairview Street site. He suggested the architect consider more streamlined skylights for Building E than the "pop-up" style shown on the plans. Commr. Reiger moved to grant schematic approval to Phase I development, endorsing the footprint of the new office building (Building E on plans) with the following direction: ■ improve the generic character of Building E through choices of colors and materials; ■ explore alternatives to the "pop-up" skylights; ■ look at providing a better connection between the west parking lot and the north building entry; and ■ prepare a cohesive master plan in terms of vehicular and pedestrian circulation to mitigate the impacts associated with the construction Building E. Comm=. Joines seconded the motion. AYES: Reiger, Joines, Combrink, Underwood, Illingworth NOES: None ABSENT: Cooper, Dingus The motion passed. COMMENT & DISCUSSION The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission scheduled for November 1, 1993, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9) of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Ricci 'Recording Secretary ----------------- --------------:�---------- ----------- ---------- -- ----- 47 r7--I 17 ji __ _ -------------- (13HILLS ----------- ....ii \Zl Q.0 ----- ------- L -C �3 c.r ?f7 llcllf�lllliillll�l��iillfl�� city of San IDIS OBISPO PARKING CALCS WORKSHEET Department of Community Development, 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 321, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 541-1000 Project Name nch H-osol•E-cd MWS-fCr Plan Phase le Number U iD9-q3 Fre Project Address 1941 Jahvm�on Avenue Plans Dated 14 -29-93 Phase I Calcs Prepared by 1 CC 1 Date I I J7 -93 Zone Parking Provided 5 2 USE: AREA: RATE: SPACES REQUIRED: French licensed 4r 139 04.92 lestublshed 1 -73 . 0 beds pk9.. red•(,s�r9ery so�f-ea add'n.� P C;floc t�/1ediCQ l 48,ODO !� 18 • to cce2 CaLculaiins) CAg9-8a 00 madylar bosiness Aces I A00 0 Ceai.+hreua U171.4 • 0 reside-n1fa1 condos 12. 0 �3vildina 1= 30.000 1 /2064 1,0 . 0 TOTALS: 52 5 . (o= 52(0 COMMENTS: ��►fllIIIIIIIIIIii�Il�; 'i'�► l`�i�� city of San tins OBISp0 PARKING CALCS WORKSHEET Department of Community Development, 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 321, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 541.1D00 Project Name French (6.�W Mas+er Plan PhaSeL File Number U 109- q3 r Project Address IQ41 .ohnson AYenoe Plans Dated 10-29-93 Calcs Prepared by t Date 11' Zone t S Parking Provided 709 USE: AREA: RATE: SPACES REQUIRED: Phase I devom-6meftl- 52(0 incl . Bldg E . B1da . C. 0B /GYM 20 beds 1 /6e d 20 Ida. 8. 35 4000 d 112000 I�- suBTaTAL 721 B14. A (,toi5 Fairview) (o , 000 d 1/300t 20 4 --3 reduction . -74 1 or 32 s pa ceS , TOTALS: COMMENTS: 3/v spoces� W•o bife at 1(015 Fairview g4-rec+ would recuire a_49mixed teed redue-Hon . 721 rec aired ryi deri . tt e� �it Health Ltd. FRENCH HOSPITAL OF MEDICAL CENTER AECEIVED v.i�. �• "05 7,LUIS OBIepO AMUNITY DEVa, December 28, 1992 Mr. Arnold B. Jonas Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Dear Mr. Jonas: The Parking Management Plan as amended by your department has been found acceptable. Portions of the plan have already been put into effect and the remainder will be put into effect after the first of the year. The most difficult portion to implement is the appointment of a transportation coordinator as this will necessitate an individual already on staff assuming these responsibilities. Since this plan is tied to receiving a permit for construction of the modular building, I would appreciate you notifying the appropriate authorities that this requirement has been met. Your assistance and cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, �J es H. Your e Chief Operating Officer cc: Tom Salerno Susan Winsell Earl Isaacson TI,t. CA'ci•A ' Ce,-,!er t:•I tf,e Cr.��!�21 (.o.SL /-/00 N.:�jil Lo..F. ty Of SAn WIS OBISPO ui q�1011luilintlr A�•i•`., .. ...f... ; d 990 Palm StreeuPost Office Box 6100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 December 4 , 1592 James H. Youree, Chief Operating Official French hospital Medical Center 1911 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: French Hospital Parking Management Plan Dear Mr. Ycuree: Thank you for submitting the required parking :management program for City review. I think that the plan will be a very positive tool toward encouraging employees to ride share or seek alternative modes of transportation. Pam Ricci, project planner for the two recently approved additions to the hospital, reviewed the plan and had some recommended revisions regarding plan organization and presentation. I do not . feel that her recommendations alter the original intent or goals of the submitted plan. We have retyped your plan incorporating Ms. Ricci's recommended changes. If you support proposed changes, then a signature block has been provided to indicate your concurrence. Taking action to sign the revised plan and return it to me would implement the plan and demonstrate compliance with conditions of use pernit approvals. If you have concerns with the plan as revised by City staff, then you should resubmit the plan indicating those concerns and suggested modifications. Thank you again for your efforts to put together a plan that *ill be mutually beneficial to the City and the Hospital. Please contact Pam Ricci of my staff at 781-7168 if you have specific questions_ S 4ci e ly,\. Arnold B. o1as, Community �elcpment Director FRENCH HOSPITAL PARKING YLAON'AGEMENT PLMN Plan's Coal - to maximize the efficiency of the ::ospital' s available parking spaces and to encourage alternative modes of transportation. Existing Parking Manaaenent Measures ■ Provide bicycle parking for employees and visitors. ■ Institute three staggered shift schedules to distribute demand over each 24-hour veriod. ■ Institute both 4/40 and 3/36 weekly shift schedules . ■ Post signs to specifically designate parking spaces for Physicians, Visitors, Emergency Rcom, and Employees. ■ Have the Hospital Engineering Department patrol all the parking areas to assure that vehicles are parked in amnronriate locations on the site. New Parking Manacement Measures ■ The Auditorium will not be made available to outside organizations (civic groups, etc. ) during peau times such as in the nornings and at lunch. The majority of all such meetings will be held at night. ' ■ A . method will be developed to identify the vehicles of physicians and other hospital employees in order that designated parking can be monitored. ■ The facility will adopt a RideShare progran which contains the following elements: * A Transportation Coordinator will be appointed to organize-ride-sharing and other trip reduction programs, post and disseminate information to employees about transportation alternatives, survey employees regarding preferences, and provide annual reports to the City' s Cora-nunity Development Director regarding program success ; * A RideShare Bulletin Board will be installed that posts bus schedules and other Transportation Management information; * The Hospital will completely subsidize monthly bus passes fcr bus-riding employees; French Hospital Parking Management Plan Page 2 * Carpooling employees will receive incentives in the following -manner.: - Drivers (S times per month) - 2 free movie tickets - Riders (8 times per month) - free lunch pass * All enplcyees who select an alternate mode of transportation will receive incentives by the following: - Recognition on the Transportation Bulletin Board and in the Quarterly Newsletter; and Participation 8 times per month - free lunch pass. Attest: Janes H. Ycuree Chief Operating Officer 1-103 v 0 E HIBIT 8 ' CD ,.. !' , I 1�C�Y'Ic '- �_ . ` —tet-•�:� _ '',' , .^.., ,/ a� _•,:.. '•`., _ .'� 'ice_ .�,�.". ,. �• / �..,.)•,.��:� .t'. IF Ik 141 pIr I. /. � '.\ i � 'C•iY ,�� y:- \ _ fir:. '.I. `.J. _ 21 00% ti If`aha. �1 _. .:/. � 'r �� -_`•. .- : '��y`.a�,-'; Z I u _ _ e p • y �f :1�• a • c c_ C c C_ - F -_ r r .� i I4I` J/��• J � i N � f �� MEONG AGENDA d r4-�+ DATE 12 ITEM # [ P.C. Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 8 F CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF ❑ PW DIR ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR Item 2. Actions Relating to Property at 1941 Johnson Avenue. Consideration of a master plan for the development of the French Hospital campus; Summit Health & Cambridge Healthcare Development Corp., applicant. A. Use Permit U 109-93. A request to allow the addition of a medical office building to the site with a 45.5 foot maximum height and to allow a 2 percent mixed-use parking reduction. B. General Plan Amendment/Rezoning GP/R 109-93. A request to amend the land use designation from Medium-density Residential to Office for properties located at 1615 Fairview Street and 1250 Iris Street and rezone the properties from R-2-S to O-S, with Special Consideration Overlay and amend the zoning for the undeveloped property to the west of the hospital from O-PD to O-S. Pam Ricci presented the staff report and provided an outline of issues to be considered' by the Commission. She explained the Commission needed to weigh the need of hospital facilities to be located near the existing hospital against the loss of future housing potential on residentially zoned land at 1615 Fairview Street and 1250 Iris Street. She said the property to the west of the hospital was currently zoned O-PD and a preliminary development plan had been approved in 1988. She said the Commission should determine if it was appropriate for this site to have the PD Overlay or the S Overlay. She said the applicant was requesting the S Overlay so that the entire site would have the P.C. Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 9 development plan had been approved in 1988. She said the Commission should determine if it was appropriate for this site to have the PD Overlay or the S Overlay. She said the applicant was requesting the S Overlay so that the entire site would have the same zoning. She explained that the disadvantage of the S Overlay was that the City Council cannot change conditions of the use permit for the Phase I and Phase II developments unless the item was appealed. Arnold Jonas explained that a technical difficulty existed because the Rezoning, the General Plan Amendments and the Use Permit were being considered concurrently. He said that more typically the rezoning is approved first and calls out specific requirements for future use permits. He said the Commission is usually the final body to consider use permits. He explained that if the City Council wanted different requirements for the S Zoning, it might conflict with the Use Permit. He added that use permits were required for establishing office uses in an office zone. Pam Ricci explained that an advantage to applying the S overlay was that specific concerns for the S district are highlighted, and when a use permit is applied for, the Commission's previous concerns when the rezoning was considered would be clear. She said the applicant voluntarily submitted a master plan prior to consideration of the rezoning. She explained the Commission should evaluate the potential loss of future housing and the compatibility of the proposed parking lot development when considering rezoning 1250 Iris Street from R-2-S to O-S. Issues to consider in rezoning 1615 Fairview from R-2-S to O-S were the potential loss of future housing, the compatibility of the office use with surrounding residences, and the street connection between Fairview Street and the hospital in regard to commercial traffic in a residential neighborhood. She said the use permit for Building E was needed because the site had an S Overlay. She said the applicant was requesting a height variance for 45.5 feet where 35 feet is allowed with a use permit. She indicated that the ARC'S main concerns were with the amount of proposed parking and its accessibility to the existing facilities, and the circulation of traffic on the site. She explained the master plan involved open space dedications over the creek and the ravine and a parking reduction for the project at total build-out. She suggested a condition be added stating that'The project shall include facilities for interior and exterior recycling. The applicant shall consult with local recyclers regarding size and location of areas dedicated to on-site recycling storage;" and the addition of another condition stating that 'The project shall include a solid.waste recycling plan for recycling discarded concrete, sheetrock, wood and metals from the construction site to the approval of the City's solid waste coordinator or Community Development Director." She said staff recommended the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the requests except for the rezoning of 1615 Fairview Street. P.C. Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 10 In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Pam Ricci said that the majority of the trees were shown on the plans but some eucalyptus trees near building B were not. She stated that all trees would be shown before final ARC approval. Commr. Cross expressed concern about steep slopes on the site. Commr. Senn asked it staff had considered noise considerations if 1615 Fairview Street were to be residentially developed because of its proximity to the railroad tracks. Pam Ricci said there would be problems with either type of development and a noise study would be needed. She said a traffic study comparing the effects of residential development with office development had not been done. In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Pam Ricci said the project was reviewed by Terry Sanville and condition 12 called for an easement for a bicycle path as a Public Works Department requirement. In answer to a question by Commr. Hoffman, Pam Ricci said the Public Works Department would like to see the driveway developed as a full street. She said an advantage of the full street would be improving circulation of the neighboring area. She said at preliminary grading and drainage plan had been submitted. In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Ron Whisenand said ARC review and a Planning Commission use permit would be required for Building B. Pam Ricci said the open space dedication would show areas that could not be developed. In answer to questions by Commrs. Cross and Whittlesey, Pam Ricci explained that the access referred to in condition 14 was emergency access only and would be controlled by a type of physical barrier. Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing. Rob Rossi, one of the property owners, presented a history of the property from when it was purchased by Dr. French to the present time. He said Dr. French's initial intent was to develop this entire area as a medical complex with doctors practicing near the hospital. He explained that this master plan was submitted because it provided adequate parking and the buildings were situated to make it easy_for patients to go from one building to another. He said the parking farthest from the hospital was suitable for hospital employees and adequate parking was available near the hospital for patients. He felt the road connection to Fairview as a public street was infeasible because of grading. He felt the grading required for the buildings was not excessive for this type of project. P.C. Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 11 Commr. Cross asked why a parking deck had not been considered to eliminate the amount of paving. Mr. Rossi said parking decks were very expensive and he believed the applicants' parking plan was adequate and provided better proximity to the medical complex. He said residential development at 1250 Iris was considered, but the applicant found it to be infeasible. He said.most of that site would be open space. Victor Montgomery, 3026 South Higuera Street, used a site plan that was displayed on a wall to explain why locations for the proposed buildings were chosen to make hospital uses convenient to patients. He said that Building E would have a common lobby with the Medical Plaza which has an indoor hallway connection to the hospital. He pointed out the location of the new operating room which is currently under construction and the areas designated for employee parking. He explained that if the Fairview Street parcel was rezoned and had a street, a signal could be provided, but if it was developed as R-1, residents would have to use an unsignalized intersection farther down Johnson Avenue. He said parking decks cost about $12,000 per space and that would be too much of a financial burden. He said Building E was needed to provide facilities for doctors so that the hospital would be more competitive. He believed the community asset the hospital would provide would justify the elimination of residential land. He said that the City requested a master plan before any new development occurred. He explained that there are two different property owners and the applicants desired uniform zoning for the entire area. He said the 20-foot setback from top of bank would be observed and re-vegetation would be done. He said Malcom McLeod determined that approximately 56 Eucalyptus saplings that were 2 to 4 inches in radius would be removed from the open space area near the center of the site. Mr. McLeod concluded that these removals would not significantly harm the environment because those saplings were new growth from stumps. He said he could not ensure the type of facility that would be on Fairview Street, but expected it to be a satellite medical facility such as chemotherapy, dialysis or daycare. He requested the following changes to conditions: Condition 6-a modified to allow.the open space near Fairview Street to be used for hospital-related uses such as picnic tables for employee lunches; Condition 7--to be deleted because a pathway constructed to ADA standards would require substantial grading, large retaining walls, and massive tree removal; Condition 12 modified to state that the applicant would grant the easement for the City to construct a bicycle path. He explained slopes were greater than 20 percent and a path through the open space area would require a large amount of grading and retaining walls at a significant expense. He requested that a reimbursement agreement be added to Mitigation 5 in the initial environmental study whereby future projects in the area in the next 10 to 15 years would reimburse the applicant for their share the costs of a traffic signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Ella Street. P.C. Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 12 In answer to a question by Commr. Senn, Mr. Montgomery said two neighborhood meetings were held. He said four people attended the meeting for residents on Ella, George, Ruth, Henry and Iris Streets and two people attended the meeting for residents on Breck and Fairview Streets. He said Jim Aiken, an architect residing on the corner of Ella and Bins, attended the ARC meeting and saidhe favored the project, but was concerned about sufficient parking in Phase I so that it would totally meet City standards. He said another person who resided on Fairview Street favored the project and said he did not care if the area on Fairview Street was zoned office or residential and liked the idea of the driveway connection between Fairview/Breck Street and the hospital site. In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Mr. Montgomery said two representatives of adjacent property owners on Iris Street attended the neighborhood meetings. He said they wanted the hours of construction limited from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Commr. Whittlesey expressed concern about the amount of asphalt and impervious surfaces with the master plan not allowing for adequate percolation. Mr. Montgomery said this parking lot was designed, while keeping criticism on the design . of the Marigold project in mind, to provide shade trees and comfortable pedestrian circulation. He said that percolation was naturally hampered by the clay soils in San Luis Obispo. Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing. Commr. Whittlesey said she visited the site and spoke to a neighbor of the project, Betty Long, who had lived in the area for around 40 years.. She said Ms. Long had asked that the Commission be informed that she supported the project and looked forward to activity on the site. Commr. Senn said he visited the site also. Pam Ricci explained that staff wasn't opposed to making condition 6-a more clear, but that staff's intent in prohibiting structures was to prohibit buildings. Commr. Senn suggested a five minute break for staff to talk to the applicant about proper - wording of the condition. . Pam Ricci suggested condition 6-a be changed to state: "No structure of any kind shall be placed on or within said premises without the approval of the Community Development P.C. Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 13 Director." She explained that the applicant's proposals could be reviewed when future use permits were applied for in Phase II. Commr. Whittlesey said she understood that these conditions would have to be met. Commr. Karleskint suggested prohibiting buildings and allowing other structures if approved by the Community Development Department. Arnold Jonas suggested that condition 6-a be rewritten as follows: 'Improvements within the open space area shall be consistent with open space and pedestrian uses to the approval of the Community Development Director." The Commission agreed with Arnold Jonas' suggestion. Pam Ricci explained condition 7 wording was done in order to allow a less developed approach in the open space area. She explained that the staff grading representative from the City learned at an ADAconference that there was an exclusion if damage to environmentally sensitive areas could result from requirement of full ADA standards. She said the intent was to allow a less formal pathway along the creek and through the ravine area. In answer to a question by Commr. Williams, Pam Ricci said if significant grading and tree . removal would be needed, the City would not approve a pathway. In answer to a question by Commr. Whittlesey, Ron Whisenand said if an exception to ADA standards was granted, the applicant would be required to build a path but the standards would be reduced. Chairman Karleskint re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Montgomery said as an architect who dealt with ADA, he did not believe the applicant could get ah exception to ADA requirements. He requested that no pathways be required and condition 7 be deleted. He said if a pathway develops on its own, it would not have to meet ADA requirements. Ron Whisenand said with the proposed language for condition 7, if an exception to ADA requirements could not be granted, the City would not require the applicant to construct a path. P.G. Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 14 Cindy Clemens said the City would be relying on the exception. She expressed concern someone could sue because he did not have adequate access, and the court could say that the path did not fall under the exception. Mr. Montgomery said ADA requirements are enforced by litigation and he expressed concern that the applicant could be sued for not providing a path to ADA standards. Commr. Senn suggested that condition 7 state: "Pedestrian pathways shall be allowed through the open space subject to the ARC." He asked if the other Commissioners felt condition.7 could be eliminated. Commr. Whittlesey said no, because pedestrian access might need to be allowed in the future. Commr. Williams felt a pathway was allowed under condition 6. The Commission agreed to eliminate condition 7. Ron Whisenand said that staff had proposed two new conditions and starting with the current condition 9, the conditions would be renumbered appropriately by staff. He suggested Commissioners refer to the existing numbering for discussion purposes. He suggested that staff be allowed to work with the applicant on clarifying exactly where the easement for the bicycle path in condition 12 was located. Commr. Williams felt that unless a bicycle path was constructed along the railroad tracks in other parts of the City, the requirement for a path on the applicant's property was not needed. Commr. Karleskint felt the applicant providing an easement for the bicycle path was an adequate contribution and the applicant should not be required to pay for constructing the path. Commr. Hoffman agreed with Commr. Karleskint. He suggested that the words "with Phase II development" be eliminated from the first sentence of condition 12 and that the last sentence be eliminated. The other Commissioners agreed with Commr. Hoffman. Pam Ricci explained that the language for mitigation measure.5 was based on memos from the Public Works Department. She said what the applicant was requesting seemed P.C. Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 15 reasonable and suggested that staff confer with the Public Works Department prior to City Council review. Commrs. Hoffman, Williams and Karleskint felt the applicant's request for modification to mitigation measure 5 was reasonable. Commr. Senn moved to change the Land Use Element Designation from Medium-density Residential to Office and to rezone the property at 1250 Iris Street from R-2-S to O-S subject to the findings in the staff report. Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion. Commr. Cross said he could not support the motion. He expressed concern about short- term economic conditions determining long term land use planning and on the potential loss of residential areas. Commr. Hoffman felt the gains of a consolidated medical facility outweighed the gains of preserving the properties for residential uses. Commr. Cross said a parking deck could work, but was not being required for economic reasons. VOTING: AYES - Commr. Senn, Hoffman, Whittlesey, Williams and Karleskint NOES - Commr. Cross ABSENT - Commr. Sigurdson The motion passed. Commr. Senn moved to rezone the property at 1615 Fairview from R-2-S to O-S subject to an additional mitigation condition that it be limited to a maximum building footprint of 6,000 square feet. Pam Ricci said a restriction on the building size could not be imposed as a condition of the rezoning, but a condition could be added to the use permit. Commr. Senn expressed concern about rezoning it to O-S without a size limitation. Arnold Jonas suggested making a motion to rezone the Fairview property O-S with findings relating to the "S" designation.. Commr. Senn withdrew his motion. P.C. Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 16. Pam Ricci suggested a motion recommending to the City Council that the General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Map designation from Medium-density Residential to Office and a rezoning from R-2-S to O-S for the property at 1615 Fairview Street be approved subject to the following findings: Finding 1 stating 'The proposed Rezoning/General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan because future uses on the site will address the concerns of the special considerations zone which are the four bullets under Finding 1 at the bottom on page 14, which are Types of medical-related uses established at the site are consistent with general plan policies; City noise standards are satisfied; Traffic impacts are mitigated and safe on- site circulation, as well as safe access to the site are provided; and Open space is preserved. Arnold Jonas said the Commission could recommend the rezoning be subject to the four bullet items. Commr. Williams asked how the Commission could state that the size of the building was a concern. Commrs. Whittlesey and Karleskint felt the development should be restricted to medical- related uses. Commr. Senn said wording stating that uses on the site shall be limited to those which are integral with the operations of a hospital. Commr. Hoffman suggested the types and sizes of uses related to the master plan was a concern. Commr. Hoffman moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment and rezoning as recommended by staff, that it is consistent with the goals of the General Plan, and be subject to the findings as suggested by staff, with the first bullet modified to state that consideration be given that the types and sizes of uses established fat the site be hospital related. Commr. Williams seconded the motion. Cindy Clemens suggested the first bullet state: 'Types and sizes of uses established at the site are consistent with general plan policies and are logically related to the hospital master plan." Commrs. Hoffman and Williams agreed to Cindy Clemens' suggested wording. P.C. Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 17 , Pam Ricci said an additional finding should state that the development was consistent with the initial study, in terms of the discussion related to traffic and circulation impacts. Commr. Senn said Section 1734.010 of the Zoning Regulations state that the O zone was intended to provide for offices and related functions close to medical facilities, and suggested that the Commission find that this proposal is consistent with that policy statement. Pam Ricci said staff's report was made based on a recommendation for denial, and Page 8 of the initial study indicated a finding would be needed to state that this development will not introduce commercial traffic that would be significant. Commr. Cross said he could not support the motion because it was not consistent with the Land Use Element or land use policies. He expressed concern about the access road. He said it was another incremental loss of residential land. Commr. Karleskint said he could not support the motion because he believed it was not consistent with the General Plan, an office was being proposed next to residential property without an adequate buffer, and he felt this site was isolated from the rest of the hospital campus. VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Hoffman, Williams, Senn and Whittlesey NOES - Commrs. Cross and Karleskint ABSENT - Commr. Sigurdson The motion passed. Commr. Senn moved to recommend to the City Council that the undeveloped property be rezoned from O-PD to O-S as referred to on page 14 of the staff report subject to the findings in the staff report. Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion. Commr. Williams asked if the motion had to include a reason for the S zoning. Pam Ricci said yes. She said the Commission had not given a reason for the S zoning in the first motion, and reasons were needed for all three motions. Ron Whisenand said.the same four bullets would apply for all three motions. P.C. Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 18 Commr. Senn asked if he should state that the S was considered appropriate for reasons set forth in Section 1756.010, or if specifics such as a statement that the proposed development solves problems such as noise exposure,flood hazard, airport hazard, slope instability, and such development site may be used to protect areas of scenic or ecological sensitivity, wildlife habitat, or wildlife fire hazard. Cindy Clemens advised that the four bullets pulled out those specifics and said those same four bullets should be applied to all three motions. Commrs. Senn and Hoffman agreed that the amended four bullet statements should be included in the motion. VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Senn, Hoffman, Whittlesey, Williams, Cross and Karleskint NOES - None ABSENT - Commr. Sigurdson The motion passed. Commr. Senn moved to approve the use permit to allow the construction of Building E as part of Phase I of the development, and approve a master plan for the development of the French Hospital Campus based on the findings and conditions set forth as amended with condition 6 now stating: "Improvements within the open space easement area shall be consistent with open space and pedestrian uses to the approval of the Community Development Director," the deletion of condition 7, the words "with Phase II development" in the first sentence deleted and the entire third sentence deleted in condition 12; and that the negative declaration be approved subject to modification to mitigation measure 5 that the applicant may seek reimbursement for the traffic signal. Ron Whisenand asked if the motion included the various findings, the height exception, parking reduction, and the two additional conditions suggested by staff. Commr. Senn said yes. Commr. Karleskint seconded the motion, Resolution No. 5127-93. Commr. Cross asked staff if the loss of scenic value from nearby residences was considered. Pam Ricci said that was discussed at the ARC meeting, and it was determined that the location was the best place on the site for this size of building for aesthetic reasons. P.C. Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 19 VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Senn, Karleskint, Whittlesey, Hoffman, Williams and Cross NOES - None ABSENT - Commr. Sigurdson The motion passed. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Cindy Clemens said in April of 1994, several changes to the Brown Act would go into effect. She said she would be attending a conference and inform Commissioners of the details of the changes. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to special meeting of the Planning Commission on November 17, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane Wright Recording Secretary