HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/1997, 1 - PD 158-96: APPEALS OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE AMENDMENT ALLOWS A CHANGE IN OCCUPANCY FOR THE BUILDING AT 61 BROAD STREET FROM UNRESTRICTED TO SENIOR HOUSING, AND ALLOWS DEVELOPME council �. r
j aGEnaa Repout ��
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community DeveloFent Direct r�i tar ►7T
Prepared By: Judith Lautner,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PD 158-96: Appeals of Planning Commission approval of an amendment to an
approved Planned Development. The amendment allows a change in occupancy for the
building at 61 Broad Street from unrestricted to senior housing, and allows
development of an assisted-care facility on the site of the existing parking lot adjacent
to Broad Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution denying the appeals, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's action
approving the amendments.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The Planning Commission approved amendments to the existing planned development for the project
site to change the occupancy of the building at 61 Broad Street from unrestricted (all ages allowed) to
senior-only occupancy (62 years old or older). Most of the anticipated changes to the building will
involve interior modifications, but there will be some minor additions at the entries and a new two-
level multi-purpose room.
The more significant project component is a new three-level building planned in the parking lot facing
Broad Street to provide a 64-unit assisted care facility. The existing tennis courts located on the site
near Palomar are proposed to be converted to a parking lot.
Four citizens appealed the Planning Commission's action. Appeals of Planning Commission actions are
heard by the City Council.
Data summary
Address: 55 & 61 Broad Street
Applicant/property owner: Morrison L LLC
Representative: Smith&Company
Appellants:William McLennan,Florence Tartaglia, Charlotte E. Moskiman,Jan Scuri
Zoning: High Density Residential with the Planned Development overlay(R-4-PD)
General Plan: High-Density Residential
Environmental Status: Negative Declaration of environmental impact with mitigation adopted
by the Planning Commission on March 12, 1997.
Project Action Deadline: Action taken; appeals must be heard no later than 45 days after
filing(May 2, 1997). Action on an appeal may be continued; no
state or City law specifies when action on an appeal must be
taken.
14
Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 appeal
61 Broad Street
Page 2
EVALUATION
1. Major concerns have been with density, parking, and building size. Throughout the review
process (which is not yet complete - action on a parcel map is to be taken April 4 and final
architectural review is tentatively scheduled for April 21), interested citizens and Commissioners
have raised concerns about the density,parking, and the scale of the new building(The Heritage) in
relation to the surrounding neighborhood. One citizen also wrote letters of concern about the
proposed setbacks from the creek that crosses the site. The attached Planning Commission report
addresses these issues and the attachments include all letters received to date.
2. The Planning Commission supported the request. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 (two
refrained from participation because of potential conflicts of interest) to approve the amendments
to the planned development. Commissioners indicated that they felt it was a needed project in this
city (see minutes, attached) and that the density and parking requirements were properly
determined by staff. Some Commissioners wanted to see comparisons with similar projects in other
.cities,but such comparisons are not easily made because this type use is relatively new. Overall, the
Commission found that the proposal was a reasonable one for the site and that it should have no
significant negative impacts on the neighborhood.
3. Appellants.say the density bonus was awarded erroneously. Mr. McLennan's letter of appeal
(and other letters of protest) contends that the proper way to grant a density bonus is through the
planned development process. The planned development process is one way to achieve a density
bonus. To grant such a bonus through this process requires that the approving body make at least
three of the six findings listed in the regulations. Mr. McLennan contends that three of these
findings cannot be made in this case.
The bonus that was granted, however, was not through the planned development process, but
rather through a separate and wholly distinct process outlined in section 17.90.030D of the Zoning
Regulations, which reads:
When a developer agrees to construct at least fifty (50) percent of the total dwelling units in a
residential project for qualf);Ing senior residents, as defined in Section Sl.3 of the Civil Code, the
Director shall grant the developer, upon the developer's request, a density bonus equivalent to an
increase in density of at least twenty-five percent over the density otherwise allowed by the zoning
regulations; and the developer shall be eligible to receive at least one of the development
incentives described in Section 17.90.050.
The dwellings in this complex do qualify as a residential project for qualifying senior residents (age
alone qualifies the residents). Therefore, the Director granted the density bonus, allowing the
density proposed by the developer. No further discretionary action by the Planning Commission or
Council is required to grant such a density bonus. A discussion of how the density calculations were
made is available in the attached Planning Commission report. The response to the appellants'
contention is that the density bonus was granted through this alternative section of the regulations,
which is not related in any way to the density bonus .provisions of the planned development
ordinance. Whether the project meets three of the six findings in the planned development section
or not is irrelevant.
Council Agenda Report- PD 158-96 appeal
61 Broad Street
Page 3
It appears that section 65589.5 0) of the Government Code may apply in this case. This section
says that when a project meets the City's standards but the local agency either denies the project or
approves it at a lower density, then the agency must base its decision on written findings supported
by substantial evidence on the record that the project "would have a specific adverse impact upon
the public health or safety" unless it is approved at a lower density, and that there is "no feasible
method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact" other than by denial of the project or
approving it at a lower density (see Government Code section, attached). If the Council finds,
however,that the density in this case was calculated erroneously,then this section would not apply.
4. The appellants say the new building is underparked. Because the zoning regulations do not
specify a parking requirement for"assisted-care facilities", staff calculated the parking requirement
by using requirements for similar uses to develop a total parking requirement for the project. The
Planning Commission found staff's recommendation that 180 spaces be provided for the entire site
to be reasonable and made this a condition of approval of the amendments.
The zoning regulations say
17.16.60 G. Uses Not Listed.
The Director shall determine the parking requirement for uses which are not listed. His/her
determination shall be based on similarity to listed uses, and may be appealed to the Planning
Commission.
Staff used a combination of parking requirements to arrive at the total requirement. Different
parking requirements were developed for each element(independent living, assisted care) and all of
the requirements were added together. Staff's recommendation (and the PC action) was to add 33
spaces to the total,to provide a"cushion"in case some of the uses created an unexpected demand.
Mr. McLennan's(and other appellants') contention that the Heritage is underparked is based on his
assumption that 1)the City is requiring only 16 spaces for the use, which is incorrect because all of
the spaces, including the 33 extras, are to be made available to all uses on the site, and 2) the
proposed parcel map (to be acted upon on April 4) would create a lot that contains the Heritage
and only 22 spaces, which Mr. McLennan feels is inadequate.
The Planning Commission action required a total of 180 parking spaces for all development on the
site, and because access and parking is split between existing and proposed lots, an agreement will
be required to be recorded that stipulates that all parking and access on the site is to be shared.
Even if a new parcel is created that contains the Heritage alone, and if that parcel is sold to another
party, the shared parking and access agreement will remain in place. The number of spaces that
exist on that particular parcel is irrelevant.
Mr. McLennan's contention that parking will not be adequate is based in part on the potential for
each room to support two residents. He feels that if this project is to be allowed to be built that a
specific occupancy limit should be placed upon it to limit the number of residents that can live
there. Typically the Planning Commission does not set occupancy fimits on uses similar to
convalescent homes. However, if the City Council feels that it is likely that more than 201/6 of these
/-3
Council Agenda Report- PD 158-96 appeal
61 Broad Street
Page 4
rooms will be occupied by two residents(normally married couples) it may choose to set some sort
of limit In this case, staff recommends using the number developed for density purposes (see
Planning Commission report): 387, although the applicants' proposal is for far fewer residents.
In other letters,Mr. McLennan makes a comparison with boarding house requirements. The zoning
regulations require boarding houses or dormitories to have 1.5 spaces per bedroom or one space
per 1.5 occupants, whichever is greater. The Planning Commission, in its action, determined that
the use is not a boarding house because it serves a special clientele, persons age 62 and older, most
of whom do not drive cars.
5. Appellants say the new building will destroy privacy and views of surrounding residences.
Florence Tartaglia quotes the Land Use Element section 2.2.10, which says that large facilities
should be compatible with any nearby lower density development, that new buildings should
respect existing buildings in terms of size, spacing and variety, and will respect the privacy of
neighboring buildings and outdoor areas (see her appeal letter, attached). She contends that "this
huge, enormous building conforms to none of the above".
The building is large. The Heritage is to be 46,009 square feet in area, three stories, 35' in height,
with a ground-level footprint approximately 112' X 169'. The largest floor is the ground level, at
17,550 square feet. It contains the kitchen and dining areas, reading and game room, administrative
offices, community room, a three-level courtyard, and 14 resident rooms. The second floor is to be
14,970 square feet and will contain 26 rooms plus a limited dining-activity area, physical therapy
room and small beauty shop (-170 SF). The third level contains 24 rooms and additional activity
tables.
The existing buildings on the site, at 55 and 61 Broad Street, are much larger in total area and also
two and three stories in height. The designer has attempted to follow the recommendations of the
Architectural Review Commission(ARC) to mitigate the appearance of this new 35' building from
the street A small portion of the first level will be set back 15' from the street (the required R-4
setback), the second story will be set back about an additional 14' (total about 29') and the third
story is set back about 35' from the street
The building is to be located a minimum of 15' from the southerly property line, and more than 60'
from the nearest residence (81 Broad Street). This separation is dense with existing tall trees, most
of them taller than the new building will be. Although there will be windows facing the neighbors, it
is unlikely that at this distance and with the blockage of trees, there will be much opportunity for
loss of privacy that does not now exist with persons using the parking lot.
Ms. Tartaglia expresses concern about the layout of the building itself, saying the courtyard should
be eliminated and replaced with additional outdoor area The courtyard area in the center of the
building is three stories high, and has an area of about 1,680 square feet on the ground floor. A
redesign that eliminates the courtyard would shave off about that much from the building. If
removed from the longer side, the building would then be a little less than ten feet narrower than
now shown.
Normally, Commissions and the Council do not determine the best type design for a particular
project, and therefore do not require significant changes to floor plans. If the Council determines
,_y
0
Council Agenda Report-PD 158-96 appeal
61 Broad Street
Page 5
that the building is too large for the site,then it may require it to be modified to reduce the height or
bulk. It is not appropriate to dictate specifically what should be eliminated or changed within the
building,but rather preferable to leave those decisions to the developer. Staff suggests that if this is
a concern for the Council that it provide specific direction to the ARC for its final review of the
project.
6. Student evictions.One appellant(Jan Scuri) as well as other citizens, wonders what will happen to
the students who now live at 61 Broad Street. The Cal Poly Housing Office has been notified of this
potential and is prepared to assist students in finding other housing. Cal Poly itself has recently
announced its intention to build additional student housing on its property. Other projects currently
undergoing review at the City are expected to provide additional apartments. The effect of the loss
of this student housing is not expected to be significant.
CONCURRENCES
Concerns of other departments have been met with design changes.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval or denial of the appeal will have no effect on the City's funds.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may approve the appeals, thereby denying the amendments. The building at 61 Broad
would continue to be used for student(or all-age)housing. Construction of another building on the site
would require approval of an amendment to the Planned Development or modification to the zoning on
the site to eliminate the Planned Development overlay.
The Council may deny the appeals but modify conditions of approval. Modifications might include a
requirement for additional parking spaces, a maximum occupancy for the site, or other changes.
The Council may continue action on the project. Direction should be given to the applicants and staff.
Attachments
Draft resolutions
Vicinity map
Planning Commission report and attachments.
Minutes of March 12, 1997 Planning Commission meeting
Letters of appeal
Government code excerpt: Section 65589.56)
5�
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CTTY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING-AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING TO SENIOR OCCUPANCY,
AND ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ASSISTED-CARE FACILITY
(PD 158-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 12, 1997, and
approved amendments to an approved planned development at 61 Broad Street; and
WHEREAS, William McLennan, Florence Tartaglia, Charlotte E. Moskiman, and Jan Scuri
filed appeals of that action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 15, 1997 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration with mitigation
of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration
with mitigation adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed
amendment to the planned development, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby denies the appeals and upholds
the Planning Commission's action approving the amendments based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The facilities as designed or modified are suitable for senior occupancy.
2. The project will not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of persons living or
working in the vicinity, because it will provide a variety of living arrangements for elderly
persons, along with suitable amenities, within one area, allowing efficient use of facilities and
assistance to the elderly according to need.
3. Senior housing is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding
land uses, because the use, in general, is quiet and easily integrated into a lower-density
residential neighborhood, and because the use is near shopping and health care services.
4. The proposal conforms with the general plan, which says that group housing may be permitted in
high-density residential areas, where it is supportive of and compatible with high-density
dwellings.
SECTION 3.The approval is subject to the following mitigation measures and conditions:
NO
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 2
mitigation measures:
1. Mitigation Measure:
The Architectural Review Commission shall evaluate the appropriateness of the new
building's scale (height, bulk and massing) in terms of compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood. The issue of impacts to the view corridors of nearby residents shall also be
considered.
Monitorine Proeram:
Compatibility issues shall be addressed by the both the Planning Commission and the
Architectural Review Commission with their review of the project. Compliance with the
conditions of both these review bodies shall be overseen by Planning staff during building
permit plan check.
2. Mitigation Measure:
The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping/creek restoration plan along with plans
submitted for final review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. The plan
shall incorporate the recommendations of the botanical survey prepared by V.L. Holland,
Ph.D. dated December 1996 and incorporated into this study be reference. The plans shall
be routed to the City's Resource Manager for review and comment, and will also require the
review and approval of other agencies with regulatory control over work done in the riparian
corridor of Garden Creek, specifically the State Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Monitorine Program:
The Architectural Review Commission will ultimately approve the landscaping and creek
restoration plan. Community Development Department staff will coordinate with other
regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over plans, review building permit plans to insure
consistency with ARC approvals and provide field inspections to confirm that installation
complies with plans.
3. Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed soils
engineering report needs to be submitted at the time of building permit which considers
special grading and construction techniques necessary to address the potential for
liquefaction. It shall identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation
recommendations to ensure against unstable soil conditions. Grading and building must be
designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report.
Monitorine Program:
The Community Development Department staff will review plans in conjunction with the
soils engineering report through the building permit plan check process.
4. Mitigation Measure:
OR and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet
intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the
creek directly or through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained
to ensure efficient pollutant removal.
I-�
0
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 3
Monitoring Program:
The Community Development and the Utilities Department staff (Industrial Waste
Coordinator)will review plans for compliance through the building permit plan check process
and subsequent inspections.
5. Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2), 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 project 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;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or off-
site;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping, 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.
Monitoring Program:
Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Development Department staff
through field inspections during project construction.
6. Mitigation Measure:
In conjunction with required fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems, a graphic annunciator panel
shall be installed to the approval of the Fire Marshall.
Monitoring Program: e
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire Marshall.
7. Mitigation Measure:
Traffic control signals shall have emergency preemption devices installed to expedite
emergency access.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire Marshall.
/-8
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 4
8. Mitigation Measure:
An emergency vehicle loading area shall be provided for the new assisted living facility. The
loading area shall be located as to minimize noise and glare impacts to adjoining neighbors
and shall not block or otherwise compromise other required parking spaces.
Monitoring Program:
Design of the emergency vehicle loading area shall be reviewed and monitored through the
review of plans during architectural review and building permit plan check.
9. Mitigation Measure:
Future site development shall incorporate:
• Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
• Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
• Energy-efficient fighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives for tenant
operational reasons, buildings should be designed to exceed energy conservation standards in
the California Energy Code by 10%.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted
for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff.
10. Mitigation Measure:
The developer shall install an oil and grease separator at an appropriate location in the sewer
system to the approval of the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator.
Monitoring Program:
The Utilities Department staff (Industrial Waste Coordinator) will review plans for
compliance through the building permit plan check process and subsequent inspections.
11. Mitigation Measure:
The new assisted care facility and the remodeled building at 61 Broad shall incorporate
facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. A plan for recycling construction waste
shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance.
Construction waste shall be recycled in accordance with this plan.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community
Development Department staff.
12. Mitigation Measure:
All exterior lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto
adjacent properties. The specific design of lighting shall reviewed through the required
0
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 5
architectural review process, with special attention given to the height and type of lighting
fixtures.
Monitoring Program:
Parking lot lighting shall be reviewed and monitored through the review of plans during
architectural review and building permit plan check.
13. Mitigation Measure:
An Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed prior to final architectural
review of the project (Phase I report). In addition, a Subsurface Archaeological Resource
Evaluation (SARE) will be required for those areas of the site where excavation is proposed.
The report shall note that a qualified archaeologist will be retained to monitor project
grading and trenching activities. If excavations encounter significant paleontological
resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction activities which
may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and appropriate
protective measures are approved by the Community Development Director. The
Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered
materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted
for architectural review and a building permit by the Community Development Department
staff and subsequent inspections.
14. Mitigation Measure
If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should
be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition
of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall
be included on the grading and construction plans for the project.
Monitoring Program
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted
for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff.
Conditions:
1. Occupancy of the complex shall be limited to residents who are 62 years of age or older.
2. A minimum of 180 parking spaces, 9 bicycle spaces, and 9 motorcycle spaces shall be provided
on the site at all times. Bike racks must be installed near the entrance of each building (two
bicycles per rack). Each building shall provide bike lockers for two bicycles or comparable
enclosed and marked spaces, for the use of employees. No charge shall be made to employees for
the use of these lockers.
3. The final design of the assisted care facility must be to the approval of the Architectural Review
Commission.
4, If asphalt beneath the dripline of oaks near the creek is removed during construction, protective
fencing must be installed immediately to protect the dripline area from construction traffic. No
/-/D
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
Pb 15M6 I
61 Broad Street
Page 6
materials or vehicles are to be stored or parked Within the dripline of any oak. The City Arborist.
must be notified prior to removal of this--asphalt;
Upon motion of --- _ -• secondedby— - -- - -- -_,. and.
on the following roll call vote` l
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of __ _ __ 1997.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.Bonnie.Crdwf Mayor Allen Settle
i
APPROVED.AS TO FORM-
I
o ,ey J - ey -rgerisen
8
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY DENYING AMENDMENTS TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
AND DENYING CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING TO SENIOR OCCUPANCY,
AND DENYING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ASSISTED-CARE FACILITY
(PD 158-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 12, 1997, and
approved amendments to an approved planned development at 61 Broad Street; and
WHEREAS, William McLennan, Florence Tartaglia, Charlotte E. Moskiman, and Jan Scuri
filed appeals of that action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 15, 1997 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration with mitigation
of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
hereby approves the appeals and reverses the Planning Commission's action approving the amendments,
thereby denying the amendments,based on finding that(COUNCIL STATE FINDING)
Upon motion of , seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1997.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf Mayor Allen Settle
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeffrey Jorgensen
e O
O O
O w0
O \Z
PF
o o -W_ -
s R-4 :; C-010
113 " Ell
N
ti i 'O I 6
a:aam cn a,o aeo ce+ waw
,tL lr0 3n rL )aD 1
BLVD. FOOTHILL
it, fO ,O ,1.
R-4 ;... � ;
1 M• � wK e
I wY TYI ri V�
R-4 �1 � C. N
_ o
�. 0o 0 0
ROU
r<.@ O
t.�44 .i O
RAMIONA DRIVE I
loo
O
1010 c
,¢bn[
W
K
4 PD
W
i
0
0
+ '
O
:::3::jS:,:::%. .::...........
. -—
•::. ..v... ..
RM
............ :LVM1j'%j?j:%:i%: :i:jjjji%:}{•{:ji:jj:%:'•v vY••?'ii:?�::
O O
v
D'
o'
p O i
�Y�� O
J.. }
vG'ry '.�+7T
•• Sn..
R
@A
?{ `
•:
ti•:j;::
a
:•;: '�,:;:!'];`i%fix:
.O•TT. � : 4::C%j::}?Yiiji:%i:%i::j;?:i%:{i:{::}'}::j;:;:%�: O — O
O o o {
f[It„ o
^ r„N 3Lt O
iE o
o
s•c ca -t� 3r ,}FIJ.� . �. ��' - MURRAY
e s
O
wo„ • � rw
I R-1 0 10 0 0
O O O O \
SE RR ANO DRIVE _ DFjIVE 0
VICINITY MAP r55 & 61 BROAD NORTH
PD 158-96 AR -
C 158 9S-
0
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEM#4
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: March 12, 1997
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER: PD 158-96
PROJECT ADDRESS: 61 Broad Street
SUBJECT: Amendment to an existing planned development to allow
• A change from unrestricted to senior-only occupancy and building additions including a new two-
level multi-purpose room at 61 Broad Street;
• Construction of a new three-story assisted-care facility in the parking lot facing Broad Street;
• Replacement of existing tennis courts with parking.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the amendments to the planned development, with conditions.
BACKGROUND
Situation.
The applicant wants to amend the existing planned development for the project site to change the
occupancy of the building at 61 Broad Street from unrestricted (all ages allowed) to senior-only
occupancy (one spouse that is 62 years old or older). Most of the anticipated changes to the building
will involve interior modifications, but there will be some minor additions at the entries and a new two-
level recreation, multi-purpose room.
The more significant project component is a new three-level building planned in the parking lot facing
Broad Street to provide a 64-unit assisted care facility. The existing tennis courts located on the site near
Palomar are proposed to be converted to a parking lot. '
History:
On January 4, 1965, the City Council approved the preliminary planned development plan and the precise
plan for phase 1, allowing a student housing complex. Precise plans for phases 2 and 3 were approved on
February 7, 1966 and January 6, 1970.
In July 1986 a minor subdivision was approved that split the property into two separate parcels, and the
Planning commission approved an amendment to the planned development to allow a change in
occupancy at 55 Broad Street from students to seniors. An amendment to the final design plan for 55
Broad was approved by the Planning Commission in April 1988.
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 2
Data.Summary
Address: 55 & 61 Broad Street
Applicant: Morrison I, LLC
Representative: Smith& Company
Zoning: High Density Residential with the Planned Development overlay(R4-PD)
General Plan: High Density Residential
Environmental Status: Negative Declaration of environmental impact with mitigation measures
was recommended by the Development Review Manager on February 19,
1997.
Project Action Deadline: Not yet certified complete for architectural review.
Site Description
The project site is located on the southwest corner of Ramona Drive and Broad Street. It is composed
of two separate parcels; Parcel A is developed with the apartment complex and associated parking
facilities, known as The Village, and Parcel B is developed with the apartment building and parking lot
called 61 Broad. Old Garden creek flows through the site in an open channel. Surrounding land uses
include the Foothill Plaza Shopping Center to the north, single-family homes to the east and south and
apartments to the west.
Project Description
61 Broad Village--West)
In conjunction with the change to senior occupancy, the following changes are proposed:
• interior changes to create a total of 59 units (56 one-bedroom units and 3 studios proposed; 53 units
exist);
• new architectural projection and porte-cochere at the main building entry (south side of the existing
structure);
• new parapet and facade treatment at the secondary entry facing the creek (north side of the existing
structure;
• embellishments to the facade including metal grill work, columns and parapet features; and
• new freestanding two-level multi-purpose recreation room with pedestrian bridge to the main
residential building.
New Assisted Care Facility (The Heritage at Garden Creek)
The proposal is to construct a three-level building containing 64 assisted living units. An assisted living
facility has some similar characteristics to, but is not the same thing as a rest home. Such facilities cater
to those desiring some autonomy, but need assistance with one or more activities of daily living such as
. PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 3
dressing, eating, personal hygiene, health maintenance, supervision and monitoring of medications, and
transportation. Assisted care residents do not require daily medical or nursing care.
The building footprint is 17,550 square feet with a total floor area of 43,879 square feet. The floor plan
for each level of the new building shows a series of rooms surrounding common facilities such a laundry,
lounges and dining areas. The street elevation of the new building is characterized by a series of roof
planes which steps from one to three levels. Proposed materials include:
• exterior cement plaster for main building surfaces;
• Mission style concrete the roofing; and
• pre-cast concrete or foam-plaster corbels, trim and details, as well as wood trim and details.
Other project Components
• construction of a new pedestrian bridge with canvas covering for weather protection over Old
Garden Creek linking the secondary entry of the 61 Broad congregate apartments with the Village
site; and
• the conversion of the existing tennis courts located near Palomar to a parking lot.
No exceptions to property development standards are requested as a part of this proposal.
Previous review.
On Friday, February 7, 1997, a Director's subdivision hearing was held to consider a request to create
four parcels from the existing two parcels at the project site which consists of the two apartment
complexes, The Village (55 Broad) and 61 Broad Street. The Hearing Officer continued consideration
of the request to a date uncertain to allow for density issues to be completely resolved with the Planning
Commission before any new lot lines were created.
At the hearing, public testimony from a number of neighbors was taken. Generally, the neighbors
expressed their support for senior housing on the site. However, nearby residents expressed concern
with the scale of the new building in relation to the surrounding neighborhood and stressed the
importance of sufficient on-site parking for all existing and planned facilities.
The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project on March 3, 1997, and continued it with the
comment that the project is supportable, but that the scale and character of the new building intrude too
much into the surrounding neighborhood.
EVALUATION
1. The overall proposal has support. Testimony and comments from the Hearing Officer and
Commissioners at the Administrative and Architectural Review hearings (see "Previous Review",
/- /6
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 4
above) indicates that the proposal to convert the apartments at 61 Broad to senior occupancy and to
add an assisted care facility to the complex is generally supported by neighbors and Commissioners
alike. There are few issues related to the conversion of 61 Broad Street. However, the neighborhood
is concerned about the design, size, and location of the new building, about density, and about the
adequacy of parking for the project. Letters expressing these concerns are attached.
2. Density meets standards. When the project at 55 Broad was converted to senior occupancy in
1986, staff determined (and the Planning Commission concurred) that the use was essentially "group
housing". Although individual apartments have small kitchens, two meals are provided per day in
large dining areas, and most residents choose to have their meals provided there. The project operates
like group housing and was therefore defined as such for density calculations.
Density in group housing projects is defined by the number of persons occupying the space. In the R-
4 zone, up to 55 persons per net acre are allowed.
Further, the project is entitled to a density bonus of at least 25%. Section 17.90.030D of the Zoning
Regulations says
When a developer agrees to construct at least fifty (50) percent of the total dwelling units in a
residential project for quaing senior residents, as defined in Section 51.3 of the Civil Code, the
Director shall grant the developer, upon the developer's request, a density bonus equivalent to an
increase in density of at least twenty-five percent over the density otherwise allowed by the zoning
regulations, and the developer shall be eligible to receive at least one of the development incentives
described in Section 17.90.050.
The City Attorney's office has determined that the project meets the criteria in this section, and
qualifies for a density bonus. With a 25% bonus, the total number of persons allowed to five on the
site increases to '
55 +(.25)*55 = 55 + 13.75 = 68.75 persons per net acre.
Staff calculated the number of persons likely to five at the site, based on an interpretation of industry
averages for this type facility. The industry norm for married couples living in these facilities is about
eight percent. The Village currently has about 10% married couples. Therefore, about 10% of the
one-bedroom units are occupied by two persons, the rest by single persons.
For 61 Broad, staff's calculations are conservatively based on an assumption that 20% of the one-
bedroom units are occupied by two persons. Calculations for 55 Broad (The Village) assume 50%
double occupancy for two-bedroom apartments and 10% or 20% double-occupancy for one-bedroom
units, based on unit size (one-bedroom units come in "deluxe" and "standard" sizes. "Deluxe" are
assumed to be 20% occupied by two persons.). The assisted care facility (The Heritage) has 64 units,
each to be occupied by one person.
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 5
Density Calculations
61 Broad Street:
56 one-bedroom(20%double-occupancy) 11 units @ 2+45 @ 1 67
3 studios(single occupancy) 3 units @ 1 3
TOTAL61 Broad: 70
55 Broad Street:
45 2-bedroom(50%double occupancy) 23 @ 2+22 @ 1 68
52 1-bedroom(20%double occupancy) 10 @ 2+42 @ 1 62
31 1-bedroom(10%double occupancy) 3 @ 2+28 @ 1 34
TOTAL 55 Broad: 164
The Heritage:
64 units 64 @ 1 64
The property is currently in two parcels, one containing 55 Broad and the other containing 61 Broad.
However, a parcel map is under consideration at this time, that would divide the property into four
parcels (see attached map showing areas involved). Density is calculated based on the net area of the
lot, minus creeks (the area between the tops of banks).
Density allowed, then, is:
Parcel 2: 61 Broad
Net area: 1.22 acres
Density allowed: 1.22 acres X 68.75 = 83.88 = 83 persons
Parcel 4: 55 Broad
Net area: 3.38 acres
Density allowed: 3.38 acres X 68.75 persons/net acre= 232.38 =232 persons
Parcel 3: The Heritage
Net area: 1.05 acres
Density allowed: 1.05 acres X 68.75 = 72.19 = 72 persons
Conclusion: The proposed number of units is within the density allowed on the site.
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 6
Alternative calculations: The Planning Commission may not agree that the correct way to calculate
density in this case is for group housing. An alternative method is to calculate based on unit type, as
for apartments. The assisted care facility would still be calculated at the group rate, because the units
contain very limited kitchens and board is an integral part of assisted care.
In the R-4 zone, up to 24 dwelling units per net acre are allowed, where a two-bedroom apartment is
one dwelling unit, a one-bedroom is 0.66 dwelling unit, and a studio 0.5 dwelling unit. With the 25%
density bonus, the maximum number of units per net acre would be 24 + .25 * 24 = 24 + 6 = 30
units per net acre.Using this method, staff calculates:
61 Broad:
Proposed:
56 1-br=56 * 0.66= 36.96
3 studios= 3 * 0.5 = 1.50
Total at 61 Broad =36.96+ 1.5 =38.46 dwelling units
Allowed:
1.22 acres @ 30 units/acre= 36.6 dwelling units
55 Broad:
Proposed:
45 2-br= 45.00
83 1-br= 83 * 0.66 = 54.78
Total at 55 Broad =45 + 54.78 =99.78 dwelling units
Allowed: '
3.38 acres @ 30 units/acre= 101.40 dwelling units
The Heritage:
Proposed:
64 persons
Allowed:
1.05 acres @ 68.75 persons per net acre= 72 persons
Thus only the project at 61 Broad exceeds the density allowed, and that exception is small. The
density bonus provisions require a minimum of 25% bonus. A slightly higher bonus could be
approved by the Director in that case, in accordance with section 17.90.030D, above.
. PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 7
Conclusion: The density allowed meets the City's standards.
3. Parking requirement is met. The zoning regulations say(section 17.16.060 J):
Housing occupied exclusively by persons aged 62 or older may provide one-half space per dwelling
unit or one space per four occupants of a group quarters.
The parking calculations were developed using this formula. Additional spaces for guests were
required at the rate of one space per five units, consistent with guest parking requirements for
apartment projects for any type occupancy. Some citizens have raised a concern that this section of
the zoning regulations requires that occupants be at least 62 years old, whereas residents of this
complex can be as young as 55. In previous hearings on the conversion from student to elderly
housing, the Planning Commission felt that the distinction was irrelevant in this case, and that the
intent of the regulations is being met by using this approach. The parking requirement, then, is
61 Broad:
59 units @ 0.5 spaces per unit = 29.5 spaces
guest/staffparking @ 1/5 units = 11.8 spaces
55 Broad:
128 units @ 0.5/unit = 64.0
guest/staff parking @ 1/5 units = 25.6
The Heritage:
64 units @ one per four beds = 16.0
TOTAL: 146.9 = 147 spaces required '
A total of 186 spaces are to be provided. The requirement is therefore met.
4. The new building is close to the creek The City's recently-adopted creek ordinance requires all
buildings to be set back at least 20' from the top of bank or the edge or riparian vegetation,
whichever is greater. The top of creek bank, in this case, closely matches the southerly property line.
No significant riparian vegetation extends over the property line. Two large pine trees do branch over
the existing parking lot, but these trees are not riparian. The building meets the 20' setback
requirement.
A botanical study of the creekside vegetation was made by biologist V.L. Holland (attached). Dr.
Holland's recommendation is that the land south of the new building be revegetated with native
riparian plants. The proposal has been amended to include this revegetation, as part of mitigation
required by the environmental initial study (attached). The Architectural Review Commission has
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 8
requested that this landscape plan be submitted to them as part of the next project submittal. V.L.
Holland and the City's Natural Resources Manager concur that such enhancement will adequately
mitigate any negative impacts from the construction.
5. And a new bridge is proposed. In addition to the two pedestrian and one vehicle bridge over the
creek, the project designers propose a third pedestrian bridge connecting 61 Broad to 55 Broad at the
center of the 61 Broad entrance. The bridge assists the building at 61 Broad in meeting accessibility
requirements, which is especially important for a project of this nature. It also provides more
convenient access from parking areas for residents and guests. Neither V.L. Holland nor the City's
Natural Resources Manager found significant impacts to the creek to result from this new bridge.
6. There have been concerns about building height and massing. The new assisted care building
(see plans)was designed to be 15' from Broad Street (the minimum R-4 setback) and with a height of
over 38'. Three stories in height, the building appeared quite massive from the street. The
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the design on March 3 and continued action with
direction to address massing concerns, suggesting stepping the height of the building from the street
to the rear, modifying creek elevations and outdoor use areas, and coordinating the building with
other buildings on the site (see "meeting update", attached). Letters from neighbors (attached)
emphasized the need to modify this building to coordinate better with smaller residential buildings in
the neighborhood.
The designer has made changes to the building design since that time, and has reviewed major
changes with staff. At this time, the proposal is to set the building back farther from the street,
although a small portion of the lowest level would still be at the 15' setback, and to set successive
stories back farther and farther. The third story would be set back over 70' from the street and the
overall height would be reduced to 35', the maximum for the R-4 zone. Design changes would
maintain the 64 units the developer feels is necessary for profitability but would have less of an impact
on neighboring property. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide commbnts to the
ARC on the building design as currently proposed (project revisions are expected to be available at
the meeting), but leave the final design decision to that Commission.
7. The parcel map raises questions. A parcel map to divide the property into four parcels has been
submitted. The Administrative Hearing Officer will act on this map at a later date. Staff finds that
proposed parcel no. 2 does not have adequate access to a public street and does not have adequate
space for parking for that building. The sale of parcel one could compromise the viability of the use of
the building on parcel 2. Therefore, staff supports a modification to the subdivision design to combine
parcels 1 and 2 and therefore form three lots, or otherwise resolve access and parking concerns. The
Planning Commission may wish to make a recommendation to the Hearing Officer on this proposed
lot split.
. PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 9
ALTERNATIVES
The Commission may approve modifications to the approved planned development, with modifications to
recommended findings or conditions. Unless appealed, the decision would be final.
The Commission may deny amendments. Findings should be made for denial. The project applicants may
appeal a denial or resubmit a revised project at a later date.
The Commission may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The comments received by other City departments are included as attachments to this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve amendments to the planned development, allowing conversion of 61 Broad to senior-occupancy
only and the addition of a facility for assisted care living(The Heritage), based on the following
Kndings:
1. The facilities as designed or modified are suitable for senior occupancy.
2. The project will not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of persons living or working
in the vicinity, because it will provide a variety of living arrangements for elderly persons, along with
suitable amenities, within one area, allowing efficient use of facilities and assistance to the elderly
according to need.
3. Senior housing is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land
uses, because the use, in general, is quiet and easily integrated into a lower-density residential
neighborhood, and because the use is near shopping and health care services.
4. The proposal conforms with the general plan, which says that group housing may be permitted in
high-density residential areas, where it is supportive of and compatible with high-density dwellings.
and subject to the following
Conditions:
1. Occupancy of the complex shall be limited to residents who are 55 years of age or older.
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 10
2. A minimum of 180 parking spaces, 9 bicycle spaces, and 9 motorcycle spaces shall be provided on the
site at all times. Bike racks must be installed near the entrance of each building (two bicycles per
rack). Each building shall provide bike lockers for two bicycles or comparable enclosed and marked
spaces, for the use of employees. No charge shall be made to employees for the use of these lockers.
3. The final design of the assisted care facility must be to the approval of the Architectural Review
Commission.
4. If asphalt beneath the dripline of oaks near the creek is removed during construction, protective
fencing must be installed immediately to protect the dripline area from construction traffic. No
materials or vehicles are to be stored or parked within the dripline of any oak. The City Arborist must
be notified prior to removal of this asphalt.
Mitigation measures.-
1.
easures:1. Mitigation Measure:
The Planning Commission will need to approve a height variance through the planned
development amendment application for the building to be as tall as it is proposed.
Monitoring Program:
Review of the height exception by the Planning Commission as part of its consideration of the
Planned Development amendment.
2. Mitigation Measure:
The Architectural Review Commission shall evaluate the appropriateness of the new building's
scale (height, bulk and massing) in terms of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
The issue of impacts to the view corridors of nearby residents shall also be considered.
Monitoring Program: ,
Compatibility issues shall be addressed by the both the Planning Commission and the Architectural
Review Commission with their review of the project. Compliance with the conditions of both
these review bodies shall be overseen by Planning staff during building permit plan check.
3. Mitigation Measure:
The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping/creek restoration plan along with plans
submitted for final review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. The plan shall
incorporate the recommendations of the botanical survey prepared by V.L. Holland, Ph.D. dated
December 1996 and incorporated into this study be reference. The plans shall be routed to the
City's Resource Manager for review and comment, and will also require the review and approval
of other agencies with regulatory control over work done in the riparian corridor of Garder
Creek, specifically the State Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
/-23
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 11
Monitoring Program:
The Architectural Review Commission will ultimately approve the landscaping and creek
restoration plan. Community Development Department staff will coordinate with other regulatory
agencies with jurisdiction over plans, review building permit plans to insure consistency with ARC
approvals and provide field inspections to confirm that installation complies with plans.
4. Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed soils
engineering report needs to be submitted at the time of building permit which considers special
grading and construction techniques necessary to address the potential for liquefaction. It shall
identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation recommendations to ensure against
unstable soil conditions. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance
with the soils engineering report.
Monitoring Program:
The Community Development Department staff will review plans in conjunction with the soils
engineering report through the building permit plan check process.
5. Mitigation Measure:
Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting
runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek directly or
through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient
pollutant removal.
Monitoring Program:
The Community Development and the Utilities Department staff(Industrial Waste Coordinator)
will review plans for compliance through the building permit plan check process and §ubsequent
inspections.
6. Mitigation Measure:
Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2), 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 project 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;
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 12
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or off-site;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping, 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.
Monitoring Program:
Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Development Department staff through
field inspections during project construction.
7. Mitigation Measure:
In conjunction with required fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems, a graphic annunciator panel
shall be installed to the approval of the Fire Marshall.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire Marshall.
8. Mitigation Measure:
Traffic control signals shall have emergency preemption devices installed to expedite emergency
access.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire Marshall.
9. Mitigation Measure:
An emergency vehicle loading area 'shall be provided for the new assisted living facility. The
loading area shall be located as to minimize noise and glare impacts to adjoining neighbors and
shall not block or otherwise compromise other required parking spaces.
Monitoring Program:
Design of the emergency vehicle loading area shall be reviewed and monitored through the review
of plans during architectural review and building permit plan check.
10. Mitigation Measure:
Future site development shall incorporate:
/-,o2S
. PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 13
* Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
* Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
* Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives for tenant operational
reasons, buildings should be designed to exceed energy conservation standards in the California
Energy Code by 10%.
Monitoring Proeram:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a
building permit by the Community Development Department staff.
11. Mitieation Measure:
The developer shall install an oil and grease separator at an appropriate location in the sewer
system to the approval of the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator.
Monitoring Program:
The Utilities Department staff(Industrial Waste Coordinator) will review plans for compliance
through the building permit plan check process and subsequent inspections.
12. Mitigation Measure:
The new assisted care facility shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
Monitorine Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development
Department staff.
13. 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 reviewed through the required architectural
review process, with special attention given to the height and type of lighting fixtures.
Monitoring Proeram:
Parking lot lighting shall be reviewed and monitored through the review of plans during
architectural review and building permit plan check. .
14. Mitigation Measure:
An Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed prior to final architectural
PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 14
review of the project (Phase I report). In addition, a Subsurface Archaeological Resource
Evaluation(SARE)will be required for those areas of the site where excavation is proposed. The
report shall note that a qualified archaeologist will be retained to monitor project grading and
trenching activities. If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological
resources or cultural materials, then construction activities which may affect them shall cease until
the extent of the resource is determined and appropriate protective measures are approved by the
Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall be notified of
the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified
archaeologist.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for
architectural review and a building permit by the Community Development Department staff and
subsequent inspections.
15. Mitigation Measure
If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be
called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of
artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be
included on the grading and construction plans for the project.
Monitoring Program
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans submitted for a
building permit by the Community Development Department staff.
Code requirements:
1. Any bridging of the creek must be in compliance with the City's Flood Management Policy Book and
approved by the Director of Public Works, the Corps of Engineers and the State Department of Fish .
and Game.
Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or removals,
and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, Corps
of Engineers, and Department of Fish and Game.
2. A tree protection plan and tree preservation bond shall be submitted prior to any further development
near or adjacent to the creek, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Any future
development shall not encroach within the dripline of any tree determined to be significant by the City
Arborist.
. PD 158-96
61 Broad Street
Page 15
3. A water allocation must be developed for the proposed building on Parcel 3 (The Heritage).
Additional water allocations may be needed for parcels 2 and 4, if changes result in increased demand
on the water system.
4. Water and wastewater impact fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Both the
water and wastewater impact fees are based on the size of the water meter serving each parcel. The
project engineer must submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City
can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If an off-site deficiency
exists, the developer will be required to mitigate the deficiency as part of the overall project.
5. A General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit is required where storm water discharges
associated with a construction activity that results in disturbance of five or more acres, or where the
project is part of a larger common plan of development or sale. Such permits are obtained by
submittal of a completed"Notice of Intent" to the State Water Board, with appropriate fee.
6. A total of five accessible parking stalls must be provided. This parking must be evenly distributed
within the site at the various accessible entries. This number excludes the covered parking located
along the Ramona Street side of the existing building, which does not appear to meet visitor parking
requirements.
Attached:
Vicinity map
Tentative parcel map showing existing development
Project descriptions supplied by the applicant
Parking Calcs Worksheet
Information from applicant: parking, industry norms, number of room types (Village West)
Initial Study ER 158-96
Botanical survey from Dr. V.L. Holland, December 1996
Letter signed by several neighbors dated 2-14-97
Letters from William R. McLennan dated 2-27-97, 2-11-97, & 2-5-97
Letter from Flo Tartaglia, dated 2-27-97
Letter from Richard Schmidt dated 3-1-97
Letter from Jan Scuri, undated (received February 26, 1997)
Letter from Helen Alexander dated 3-6-97
Supplied by applicant: definitions of types of living facilities("Levels of Care")
Density calculations
Map showing net areas of lots
ARC meeting update-March 3, 1997
d+0
= S p e o g ,9Yld0,rKl m
•9QL.ao.c,�.'ub�q•b. ..m. `a.o'`"o'ab"p',,w
Intl a 1a x.I vr+vx a r or ., 14
IFr
I
"b � � � � III• � --+—�GJ { M��;
13 E; ;,t �+' FII F I
It
10 it
WISI I r d I co eI I�y\III
z Ubv Be gFg , ` IiI Ig s ilg I �� I 1\ 51111
C �'f5 �Y$ �' j• I I[I >i I
E
AT
1 21 lit do
f ;= iia# #•• I ISI ^ a # I a J '\\ I I' If'�
I e I-I �� � o � _• �y�
ro ;Ise
oeNN
A.
S- I. . II 1111 11 eeg N
g l # •II ��(� Ill • 'g ��
CL
I / ,
i1// .fix nlAl
t� r - E •. ��/� i ./ �%`/ r� Jp ' 111
f; I =
fg
g may'$ - r / //spm Q� m •\�///jam/// r/ r
CcOL
oQj:n 0 Ise
z3a
`
ra B�SS�
a 'r`�`3` scm ssesera ^ b' x1 pmt s $ �
d i =E t @ w o I e d 3� tg �. j� 2
_ so
�3I _y $ C $ R 7
C �41n� P■153py$ • 0►•.t•Tl� y•E qcQO �s�$ NN
d —� �•� Fater u•H Z�� �N AM Ar Polls
gE• �i�• �~
F- No'eo`ai -' m at ar t or S oils
�V« c q
• Project Description
P
It is proposed in the following description to create an assisted living facility on the parcel of land
currently known as 61 Broad Street Apartments parking lot. This particular parcel of land is
approximately 1.05 acres in size.
The proposed assisted living facility would consist of approximately 65 apartments, 70% of the
apartments being studio's and the remaining 30% being one bedroom. A small percentage of the one
bedroom and studio apartments will be designed so as to allow for a 2 bedroom conversion for elderly
married couples who might so desire it.
Assisted living housing is designed and programed for an older more frail resident who needs a
sheltered environment and assistance with one or more activities of daily living. Assisted living care
refers to the facilities that do not provide medical or nursing care but offer room, board and daily
assistance with dressing, eating, personal hygiene, health maintenance, supervision and monitoring
of medications,transportation and other activities.
Assisted living care promotes maximum independence and choice by addressing the individual needs
and preferences of each resident. Staff are.available, 24 hours a day, to meet scheduled and
unscheduled needs. These types of facilities are licensed by the State of California's Department of
Social Services.
Through the studies and market research that we have conducted it is evident that there is a great
need for a facility of this kind within the San Luis Obispo County area. Although our facility would
not accommodate the entire San Luis Community that requires this level of care,we are confident
that it will provide a much needed service for many seniors in the community. The proximity to
medical facilities and hospitals make our site an ideal location for this type of care facility.
With all things being equal we would like to commence construction:in early June 1997: We
anticipate construction talang 9=12 month`s:, During this time we will also beupgrading the
landscaping for all four parcels of land.
Project Description
P
61 Broad Street Apartments, situated at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, are presently operated
as student housing. There are 53 apartments, 48 two bedroom, 3 one bedroom and 2 studio's.
Morrison I LLC, in the proposed plan, intend to convert 61 Broad Street Apartments from student
housing to residential/congregate housing.
Residential/congregate housing customarily is designed and programmed for the more gentile Senior
who desires an independent living unit with access to services that help maintain independence.
Services typically include meals, housekeeping, transportation and recreation. This type of housing
will attract an older, possibly more frail population.
The conversion would involve an addition to the existing building that would be attached by an
enclosed walkway. We would also extend and enclose the centre of the building in order to create
a reception area and more open space. The existing apartments will be converted from two
bedrooms to"standard"and"premium"one bedroom apartment units, with 2 or 3 studio apartment
units. It is expected that we will end up with a total of approximately 57 apartments when the
modifications are completed.
Morrison I LLC's adjacent property, The Village retirement community, has proven to be highly
beneficial to the community. However the demand for units far outweighs the availability. We
currently have a waiting list of 70 people.
61 Broad Street Apartments currently has a population of 130 students. After the conversion to
independent/congregate housing the population of the community will be reduced greatly,traffic will
be reduced dramatically and parking will be reduced by two thirds. We believe that all theses factors
will benefit the surrounding community and that the facility will provide the San Luis Obispo
community with a much needed service.
�`3z
Project construction i§expected to commence once the asSl'stedliving facility, on the new allotment
off Broad Street, has been completed. Therefore we would envisage commencing construction m
April 1998.
/=33
''►��i��l'�u11111111�i►�i' �U��l� city. of San tins OBISPO
PARKING CALCS WORKSHEET
Department of Community Development • 990 Palm Street/Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 • (805)549.7171
Project Name -TF1P_Vi II Id4E . Vi IIrICJ� FileNumber PD 159-9(o., ARC (58-9(0
Project Address 5 Y (o I Y° ..JlansDated
Jrr!' c'. �� . 1 .o. ro.eta..
Calcs Prepared by�I CU Date 2' )9--T Z Zone �� "�p Parking Provided
USE AREA: RATE: SPACES REQU IRED:
Co ► broad 59 units a 5/u"'L 2,9. E
QUE6� Q& /64n �I J. un'�s I U
55 Broad 28 units 0.5/uni-, &4. 0
avt'.s� oka - ls}afE un'rFs 25 to
jk�s+ed Care Faci1;� &4 uni�s 114 beds ! • O
I -467 .9 = 147
TOTALS:
COMMENTS:
Jan-31-97 03:07A P _02
Pam, •
Here is the information you requested. If it is not sufficient please let me know.
Thanks,
Hamish Marshall!
P.S Pam I will get the large scale floor plans of 61 Broad Street to you later today.
Parcel Bcutted Provided Calculation Used
Parking Lot 1 0 42 N/A
Village West 2 29 6 .5 * No. Of Units
The Heritage 3 18 22 .25 * No of Beds+2
The Village 4 63 116 .5 * No. Of Units
Total 110 186
*It should be noted that the Village currently has a total of 33 residence of 137 who still drive,
which is only 25%of the residence.
The break down of room types for the village is as follows:
Type of Unit No.Of Units
2 Beds 45
1 Bed/Premium 52
1 Bed/Standard 31
Total 128
*It should also be noted that the industry norm for married couples residing in these facilities is
about 8%. The village currently has a percentage of 9.8%.
�_3c
• Industry Norms For Parking
The Heritage At Garden Creek
�--'-�^``:
No of Employees No of Employees No of visitors at any Total�parking
-
on at a time that drive one time .r
14 7 4
Dear Pam,
We have spoken to owner-operators in the industry and these are the figures that we were given '
as industry norms for parking in assisted living communities. The residents that reside in these
communities do not drive. They come to these facilities because they can no longer cope with the
day to day functions of living and need some assistance in some shape or form.
At any one time, as displayed in the table above, there is a maximum of 14 employees working
during the day. This number obviously drops at night. However, due to the employees being
generally low income earners they do not tend to drive. It is an industry none that approximately
30%of the employees will drive to work. The remainder will either catch the bus, walk, ride or
simply car pool with a co-worker. We have allowed in our calculations for 50% of the employees
to drive.
Visitors do not usually visit the project during 8:00am and 5:00pm because they are generally
working or the kids are at school so they can't visit grandma etc. Therefore employee parking and
visitor parking does not usually cross over. However, we have allowed for four visitors at any one
time in our calculations.
With this in mind we have concluded that a total of 11 parking spaces will be needed at any one
time to satisfy the demand the facility may create. We have in the proposed development plpn
provided 22 parking spaces. We therefore believe that these figures illustrate that there will be'.
ample parking for the Heritage At Garden Creek.
The Village Complex
No of Employees No of Employees %of Residents that drive No of visitors at Total par
on at a time that drive any one time r wred�- — =
3 eq,-.- w.:.� —
20 16 33% of 136 residents 4
At any one time there is 16 employees on, 4 visitors and 33% of the residents drive out of a total
population of 136. This will therefore require that we provide at least 65 parking spaces.
In our proposed development plan we have provided 116 parking spaces. The figures above are
actual numbers and is what is occurring now.
/-3(r
The Villages West
147
No of Employees No of Employees %of Residents that drive No of visitors atTotal pa gc ^
on at a time that drive any one timeequireds.
8 6 33% of 65 residents 4i -
Taking The Villages figures into consideration, because they are actual figures, we have
calculated what we think will be required, realistic parking for The Villages West.
The Villages West will be less than half the population of The Village and some of the staff will be
utilized from The village to cater for the needs of The Villages West. Through our calculations .
we have arrived at a figure 32 parking spaces being needed for The Villages West.
We are proposing that the parking lot fronting Ramona and Palomar cater for this parking. In this .
parking lot we are proposing to create 42 parking spaces. This would provide ample parking for
The Villages West.
Because we are building a multi-care campus we are requesting the city view and consider the
parking on the campus as one.
I hope this information will clear up any discrepancies the city and/or neighbors might have, .
because it is our belief that the traffic impact will drop dramatically.
Yourstncerle y,
Harris arshall
Project Manager
1-37
Feb-01-97 05: 52A p _ 02
Break Down Of Room Types At The Village West
wait >ae�
rpm/1;Bed
Deluz/l Bed Studio Delo:Studio
-P `;
1 st Level 10 8 0 0 0
2nd Level 10 8 0 0 0
3rd Level 11 g 1 2 1
.
31 ?A I 2 !
Total 1-Beds: 56
Total Studios• 3
Total Unks
INITIAL STUDY ER 158-96
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
The Village-West and The Heritage at Garden Creek
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Judith Lautner, Associate Planner -
(805) 781-7166
4. Project Location:
61 Broad Street, near Ramona Drive
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Morrison I LLC
555 Ramona Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
6. General Plan Designation:
High-Density Residential
7. Zoning:
R-4-PD
/-3
IIcit
Y o sAn WIS OBISpO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
8. Description of the Project:
The City has received an application to amend the existing planned
development for the project site to change the occupancy of the building at
61 Broad Street from unrestricted (all ages allowed) to senior-only
occupancy (one spouse that is 62 years old or older). Most of the
anticipated changes to the building will involve interior modifications, but
there will be some minor additions at the entries and a new two-level
recreation, multi-purpose room.
The other major project component is a new three-level building to provide a
64-unit assisted care facility. The existing tennis courts located on the site
near Palomar are proposed to be converted to a parking lot.
9. Project Entitlements Requested:
The applicant has applied for environmental review, a planned development
amendment and architectural review in order to process the project with the
City. An application for a minor subdivision was also received. The
proposed map would create four parcels and allow each of the existing and
planned buildings to be located on separate lots.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The project site is located on the southwest corner of Ramona Drive and
Broad Street. It is composed of two separate parcels; Parcel A is developed
with the apartment complex known as The Village, and Parcel B is
developed with the apartment building called 61 Broad. Old Garden creek
flows through the site in an open channel. Surrounding land uses include
the Foothill Plaza Shopping Center to the north, single-family homes to the
east and south and apartments to the west.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement):
The State Department of,Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
are required to review and approve plans for a new bridge over the creek and
clearing and erosion repairs to the creek.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to includa tha riiaahtorl in All mf few conA, .,...+ -
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
X Land Use and Planning X Biological Resources X Aesthetics
Population and Housing X Energy and Mineral X Cultural Resources
Resources
X Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
X
X Water Noise Mandatory Findings
of Significance
X Air Quality X Public Services ::>::::>: <:��_>;::>:�<...: s>,?.;:��;�u.«:,;>'. •.;:'.;.::�
...+biy`);<:ay,....a:::<�;�;.:•aN;z....r;JkO�',';.a.<.t::?a:>>?M:::S'`E:i
' :;:;f':::::::2:'.v`:`i':"+">:,'�:..5�''<'$?vki'\n3Y;:ii+i
f:k: jj
i(:yl::':'.�;.}•::
X Transportation and X Utilities and Service
p
Circulation Systems
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse
effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the
project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment
of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be X
re ared.
I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially.Significant Impact" or is "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
3
• analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions.or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
gnatur Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)
(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
-- statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
/- yz
4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Law Than No
sigfficant Significant significant Impact
ER 158 96 Uses UnlessImpact
Page 5 Incorporated
1.,:€iAND::USEIIN.Q"PLAN.NIIVG; Woufdahc:p[o tical
....... ......... ..�.... ..... ......5$ .:
aj ' Confliia with
general plan.des�gnAtton or ggppg? 1,2 X
... „C nfBct ... applicable environmental ptarts or palictes:
:.... ..::.::.•::5:::..:.5.,> _55...... »:: :..:::;5:: :<::
adopted;;by;agenclesuvrth7unsdictlan ovEcthe;pro�ect! X
c1 :<Be mcompatl6le wit>7 existing ancf use an the'vtcinrt_V X
....
,..:. 5..
::. ..s :..,. .....:,
. .5.:..:...>.. ..:.'....::� 1s46op .� o9amPdr...t:.>:€'A:::f5e £ a$ uas9eioea
.. ... .
to dolls or farmlands, or ampacts from Incompatible X
.;: land.uses� '
ej..;Pt..... or dwlde tie phystcaF arrangement of an
estabbshed coinmuntty (mctudtn .,.a. Jow income oK: X
..
:.mtnorit .'Commu.I l?..:<' .. . ..:.':;
General plan policies relevant to the request are discussed in the following paragraphs:
Housing Element
Goal 1.28: Special Housing Needs. Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for those
with special housing needs.
Policy 1.28.1: The City will encourage housing that meets the special needs of families with children,
single parents, disabled persons, those desiring congregate or co-housing lifestyles, the elderly,
students, and the homeless.
Conclusion
The project is consistent with this policy as it provides congregate housing and a range of housing
choices for the elderly.
Land Use Element (LUE)
Policy 2.2.8, Natural Features: Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities
natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and plants.
Conclusion ,
The creek corridor will continue to be maintained in an open channel through the site as an amenity.
Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. See also related discussion under Section 4.,
Water, of this initial study below.
Policy 2.2.9, Parking: Large parking lots should be avoided. Parking lots should be screened from
street views. In general, parking should not be provided between buildings and the street.
Conclusion
The new building providing assisted living housing will be located at the required street yard setback
with parking along the side of it and behind it. Therefore, proposed parking can be adequately
screened from street views. The proposal to located the building, rather than parking lots, closest to
the street is consistent with the policy.
Policy 2.2.10, Compatible Development: Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in
scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living
5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources potentially Potentially I.Ass Than No
.
Significant it Significant Impact
IssuesUnless
impact
ER 158-96 mitigation
Page 6 Incorporated
facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density development.
A. Architectural Character New buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to
neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety.
B. Privacy and Solar Access New buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring
buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook
backyards of adjacent dwellings. (See also the Energy Conservation Element.)
Conclusion
The new proposed assisted care building will have three levels and be 38'4" tall. The maximum height
limitation in the R-4 zone is 35 feet. The new building will be taller than nearby single-family
residences located directly to the south and east of it. A large building at this location has the
potential to appear out of scale with surrounding buildings and to impact views from these buildings of
Cerro San Luis and Bishop Peak.
Mitigation Measures
1. The Planning Commission will need to approve a height variance through the planned development
amendment application for the building to be as tall as it is proposed.
2. The Architectural Review Commission shall evaluate the appropriateness of the new building's
scale (height, bulk and massing) in terms of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The
issue of impacts to the view corridors of nearby residents shall also be considered.
Policy 2.2.11, Site Constraints: Residential developments shall respect site constraints such as
property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, native
vegetation, and significant trees.
Conclusion
The most important natural feature of the site is Old Garden Creek. The creek will continue to be
preserved as an open channel through the site. The existing creek corridor is identified orf the Creek
Map (Figure 4) of the Open Space Element as a "perennial creek with degraded riparian corridor, but .
able to be restored/repaired.' Any changes proposed as part of this project to the improve the quality
of the riparian corridor are consistent with this policy.
Mitigation Measure
3. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping/creek restoration plan along with plans submitted
for final review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. The plan shall incorporate the
recommendations of the botanical survey prepared by V.L. Holland, Ph.D. dated December 1996 and
incorporated into this study by reference. The plans shall be routed to the City's Resource Manager
for review and comment, and will also require the review and approval of other agencies with
regulatory control over work done in the riparian corridor of Old Garden Creek, specifically the State
Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Policy 2.12.12, Residential Project Objectives Residential projects should provide:
A. Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project;
6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially .Potentially less Than No
Significant significant significant Impact -
Issues unless impact
ER 158-96 mitigation
Page 7 Incorporated
B. Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive
light and sunshine;
C. Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with
minimum mechanical support;
D. Pleasant views from and toward the project;
E. Security and safety;
F. Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets;
G. Adequate parking and storage space;
H. Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. (Barrier walls, isolating a
project, are not desirable. Noise mitigation walls may be used only when there is no practicable
alternative. Where walls are used, they should help create an attractive pedestrian, residential setting
through features such as setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk
through them at regular intervals, and planting.)
I. Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along;
streets, and entryways facing public walkways.
J. Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as recommended by the City Fire Department.
Conclusion
Out of the numerous objectives listed above, D. and G. have the most potential to be of concern with
this project. The view issue was briefly discussed under Policy 2.2.10, Compatible Development,
above. The issue with adequate parking will be addressed through Planning Commission review of
the planned development amendment. No further mitigation is necessary.
Policy 2.4.8, High-Density Residential: Development should be primarily attached dwellingd in two- or
three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. Other
uses which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such as group housino, parks,
schools, and churches, may be permitted. Such development is appropriate near the college campus,
the downtown core, and major concentrations of employment.
Conclusion
The project which provides group housing in a new three-level building is consistent with this policy.
2.8 Group Housing
Policy 2.8.1: Large group housing other than fraternities and sororities, such as retirement homes or
homes for handicapped, should not be located in low-density residential areas. They may be located,
but not concentrated, in medium-density residential areas. They may be concentrated in medium-high
or high-density residential areas, or in suitable commercial or light-industrial areas, where services are
convenient. Each large group housing proposal shall be evaluated through use-permit review.
7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 158-96 mitigation
Page 8 Incorporated
Conclusion
The project site is zoned high-density residential (R-4-PD). Therefore, the proposal to concentrate large
group senior housing at this site would be consistent with this policy. Because of the requirement for
approval of planned development amendment by the Planning Commission, a separate use permit-is
not needed.
Open Space Element (Policy OS 3.2.3 B., General Plan Digest)
Enhance creek corridors and their habitat value by: (1) providing an adequate creek setback., (2)
maintaining creek corridors in an essentially natural state, (3) employing creek restoration techniques
where restoration is needed to achieve a natural creek corridor, (4) utilizing riparian vegetation within
creek corridors, and where possible, within creek setback areas, (5) prohibiting the planting of
invasive, non-native plants (such as Vinca maior and Eucalyptus) within creek corridors or creek
setbacks, and (6) avoiding tree removals within creek corridors except when determined appropriate by
the City Arborist.
Conclusion
. The new building maintains the minimum 20-foot setback from the top of creek bank. Some paved
areas already exist within the creek setback area. With project development, some of the paved areas
that encroach into the creek setback area will be removed and others will remain. The Planning
Commission may consider exceptions to allow some paved areas to encroach into the required creek
setback areas. The applicant has submitted a botanical survey prepared by V.L. Holland, Ph.D. dated
December 1996 to comply with the requirement contained in the zoning regulations for a biological
survey to accompany creek setback exception requests. Impacts to the riparian corridor were
previously discussed under LUE Policy 2.2.11, Site Constraints, and included the mitigation measure
for review of a landscaping/creek restoration plan by the Architectural Review Commission. Related
issues are also discussed further in Section 7., Biological Resources.
............................................................
IN ::-:W.....1 ':fi'..,,._�......... afi i i s i ..............................................'r ......................."s :i `:.':: ..................................: ii
2. .POPULATION AND.HOUS G ou d t e o os
........... Cu:mplatively=exceed officra€ egioA:al o.r`lACal population;
Pcolectiorts� .: ....... . ....... X
bran.d.uce;substanital;::graiivth >rs:an::2rea::eitherd�rectly o >
..:::> indirectly.(e..g.. thrAugh projects fn,an undeveloped area_ X
:.
:...:..or.malor mfrastrp"' rel.
c) Displace existing fiousmg, espeCialty affordable: 1,3,4
::: ::...:._..::... ..::...::.:.::::.....:..::.:..::...:.::..::..:::.::...:::..:::...:.::..:.::::..;:..::.......:;::....:,...;..:::.:::
:.... ................................................:::....:.:....::.....:..
Back in 1986, the change in occupancy from student to senior housing was approved for the apartments at
55 Broad Street now known as The Village. At that time, the change was determined not to have a
significant adverse impact on the supply of housing for students citywide. The reasons for that
determination were that .the supply of housing had increased, student preferences had changed (less
demand for off-campus dorms), and Diablo Canyon construction workers who had competed for housing
had left the area.
Since 1986, enrollment at Cal Poly has fluctuated. In 1986, enrollment was about 16,000. It then
increased to 16,500 in 1988 and reached an all-time high level in 1990 of 17,700. Projected enrollment for
the fall of 1997 is 16,500. According to annual reports produced by the City of San Luis Obispo Building
Division, 327 multi-family units have been added to the City's housing supply since 1986. Applying the
average persons per household (2.29) to the new units.added, the number of persons that might expect to
8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Thain No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 158-96 mitigation
Page 9 Incorporated
be residing in these new units could be approximated (749). Subtracting the 50 units lost to student
housing at 61 Broad Street, housing for approximately 700 persons has been added since 1986. Not all of
the new housing would necessarily be available for students. However, it can be assumed that much of it
would. Given projected enrollment, available housing and the fact that students often share single-family
houses that were not considered in estimating the availability of new housing units, the loss of the 51 units
at 61 Broad does not appear to have a significant impact on the availability of housing for students. In
addition, there has been extensive discussion about providing additional housing on campus to alleviate
some of the demand for rental units in the City.
Another important factor to consider in reviewing the impact of the occupancy change, is the need to.
provide housing opportunities for seniors near services and facilities. According to the City's Housing
Element, the percentage of seniors lover 65 years of age) has increased from 11.5% in 1980 to 12.2% in
1990. With the aging of the "Baby Boom" generation and longer life expectancies, the need for suitable
housing and related service for seniors is expected to continue to grow. The conversion of the apartments
at 61 Broad Street, along with the development of the assisted care units in the proposed new building,'will
help meet demand for new senior housing.
. ....................::........:..:.::. ...,........::....:.:...;..:.,,..<,:....,.:..,<,::::.::...,,,.........:,.:..,,..:....:..,..::...,........
3 aGEOLOGIC::PROBLEM S:`€:Woutd.the:: ro osal result.trl or;ex ose eo Ce o.1potentiaktmpacts::Involvm
,...
aI€>a€Fault:r.:upture.::.:::::::::::::.....:..:...:.:.......:...... : ........:....:..........:..._..:.........: 5 X
b),. Seism►c.ground shaking? . :.:. 6 X
>r :::::::::.......:::..._.:...::.:......:......................:.,:..:::.:::.:..:;..:..::.....:::.::.............:.::;
c :: t t r it:.....,.,,....:..........,..., .
.I:::::5eam.:c.g ound,fa.,.,u[e, tncludingai.quefacfiari:?:> `` i i` i ' 6 X
til:: Seiche, tsunami, or voicarnc hazard? X
..
»:•:•.::.....'d - pr.i:;i: :.: ..........> i iil Siciiic' iiiiF S ;:ci iieii'i.............._.....:iiE i
e).. Landslides or mudflows. .... ., 6 X
fj' Erosion;i.pha.n.gess In top.0;9a.P..hYa ;Unsta.4te'Sotii< >i ;; ii 6 X
or condivons from excavation,,grading, orfill?
...
Jl;.,.Subsidence f" he' ;:.. . ;; :.: 6 X
#tl. Expansive soils?.. :.. .. ,... . 6 X
a) 'Uniquegeolo lc or;; Hys�cal;ifeatures�€ € <»€I ! ;EiE>i€€i':€: € 6 X
The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong
ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in
compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code.
The site lies in an area identified by the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan as being,in the "R",
Recent Alluvium, zone which has a high liquefaction risk. As defined in the Seismic Safety Element,
"liquefaction involves a sudden loss in strength of a saturated cohesionless soil (predominantly fine grain
sand) which is caused by shock or strain (such as an earthquake), and results in a temporary transformation
of the soil to a fluid mass." Liquefying layers near the surface can cause a sinking, "quicksand"-like effect.
At lower levels, liquefying layers can cause a slipping surface for layers above.
Mitioation Measure:
4. Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed soils
engineering report needs to be submitted at the time of building permit which considers special grading and
construction techniques necessary to address the potential for liquefaction. It shall identify the soil profile
on site and provide site preparation recommendations to ensure against unstable soil conditions. Grading
and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils en ineering report.
:WATER 1Noafd the; 'ro osal result m .:i
.., ...........
........ ...........:::....................
aP Changes rrt a6sorpUan.rates;.dramage.. -tterns,,nrthe 2 X
rate and amount of swface runoff
{:; Exposure of people or property.ta water Yefeted
9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
sigtitictnt Significant ptificant Impact
ER 158-96 IssuesIssuesuUnlessI Impact
mitigation
Page 10 Incorporated
hazards such as flooding? 7 X
cl Discharge into surface waters' e.other alteration of "€
.i:,::;r i...:?':'i:::::):'):':......:::::.::::::':')::.::�:::':::�::i)isi ::f: .:i::i:is��:.i:"i:)::):';:::):::::i::':i:::::::::'i'::
In
surface water.quality;:(e g temperature, dtssolyed - X
oxygen or Yur. idrty
dj Changes�n.the amount af.surface water m any water...
body X
;..e Changes to currents,orihe::course or d¢ecnon of watef
::'
.:.............:...::.:.:......:.....:..,,,>.><::;::;i;?isi:;:%;::%#i;::;:::::::'.:<......):;:;Tis:i:>s:��:;><::>:::s�::;:::::::>.i:::i<'i:;•i;i:i::;:>::::
::: :movements? X
fj: Chan :e:4n:1 07quantity�f ground waters, either
.::.:.................mg..........:.:,...............:::.:.:............. ;
...:.
: . rough:.direc addrtrons or withdrawals, or Through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or expavatrons or X
through substantial.loss of groundni:water recharge
ca abiLt
g1 ,altered direction qr rate of flowf groalndwater? X
h) Impact.S._.:. ogrountivvaterguatity?. .... .,.. X
Substantial reduction . 2he,amount of groundwater X
€;...r.:oavailatzPe::for: U'b water su plies? i :. ..
Drainage
The project will not significantly increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site since the area of
. the site where the new building is proposed is currently a paved parking lot and the new parking area will
be created from the existing concrete tennis courts. Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7 encourages the use of
porous paving, landscaping, or other design elements to reduce surface water runoff and aid in the ability
for surface drainage to percolate effectively into the soil. Through the review of the required architectural
review application, changes to drainage patterns can be adequately evaluated with the grading and
landscaping plans.
The Public Works Department notes that a general construction activity storm water permit will be required
for all storm water discharges associated with construction activity. The Building Division indicates that
storm drain runoff calculations will be required prior to issuance of a building permit.
Most of the site drainage is directed into Old Garden Creek. Any development involving substantial parking
areas or the servicing of vehicles may result in petroleum-contaminated drainage polluting nearby surface
waters. Discharge of any pollutants (e.g. herbicides, pesticides, janitorial cleaning products, and toxic
substances such as motor oil, gasoline, and anti-freeze) or heated water (e.g. from steam cleaning
sidewalks) into a storm water system or directly into surface waters is illegal and subject to enforcement .
action by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. To avoid discharging toxic pollutants and cleaning
products into nearby surface waters, the following mitigation is recommended:
Mitigation Measure
5. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff
as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek directly or through the storm
water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal.
Flooding
The 100-year flood hazard zone storm for Old Garden Creek generally stays within the confines of the creek
channel itself. Two over-bank areas occur on-site near Ramona Drive and Broad Street and are designated
as Flood Zone B on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The proposed assisted care facility complies
with the requirement of the zone to maintain finish floor elevations at least one foot above the 100-year
10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 158-96 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 11 Incorporated
storm elevation. No further mitigation is necessary.
'A WO ::Wouid th.e:: fo osal'
.::...
aI : Ulolate any arr. >yaltty stapdard.or contribute town
extsttrti pr'projectedlit auon(Compliance X
.....
5'AP
rt:..':..:>:CC3: nvcrAnmenta s.:..uidelines ........:.
b): Expose sensitive receptors wP:61 utapts X
: . ................:.:........:...................::.....::......;: , . .
..... . :. .. . _:.:.:.:::....:......:..::.:.::......r...
.
:s ':::.terarlrrio.:.vem:ent mosEure;;or'temperature;::or;cause;
any change In cllmate7 X
.,.<....,. . ..... .
d): Create;obtectipnable odors? X
Based on consultation with the County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), the project is below the
minimum thresholds for APCD's significance criteria in terms of both construction and long-term project
impacts. In fact, the project as planned, in conjunction with the existing Village development, incorporates
many of the site design features commonly required as mitigation measures for projects including:
a. bicycle parking and locker facilities ;
b. on-site food facilities;
c. a van-pool service;
d. provision of a bus stop;
e. improvements, including installed traffic calming modifications on Ramona Drive, which allow for
improved pedestrian access between the site and the neighborhood shopping center.
Conclusion
The project will not have a significant impact on air quality based on established significance thresholds.
However, project construction has the potential to create nuisance issues with nearby residents. Therefore,
staff recommends that the following mitigation be incorporated into the project:
Mitigation Measure
6. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2), 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 project 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;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or off-site;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the construction
11
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially potentially LA=Than No
I=esicartt Significant Impact Impact
ER 158-96 i�,a [Mess Gnpact
mitigation
Page 12 Incorporated
site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
6 TRA NSPORTATION1CIRCULQTIOM1F 1Ntiuld°the.
pro osat result:in
°al Increased ve[�icFe nips at traffic;congest�on?;: .
10 X
} Hazards to safer from Blest n features (e g shat
,
_ 9 p ,
curves ry 8angerous )ntersectipns) or tnCompatihle uses:` X
];e g farm Equipment}J7 :a:
c1 Inadequate.emergency access or access to nearby
uses
- X
dM losufficierif parking t:apacity on site.or off site?. X
e) Ffazards pr baraers for pedes;Hans pr bicyclists?
,:
X
f) tronfGcts with adopted policies;supporting alternaLve
>. ::. ..
:: transpgrtati6ft g ?_Eiys turnout' ,15 ;:cle racks
y 3 _X
:.
RaiE, waterb..... or air traffic Impacts:(e
compatibility with San f urs Obispo Co Airport;tand
se.Plan),
...._...,......
Trio Generation
According to the Trip Generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the
project as proposed will generate fewer vehicle trips per day than the existing development does. The
reason for this is that the daily trip ends for congregate care housing are much lower than for standard
apartment projects. The ITE manual indicates that vehicle ownership levels for congregate care facilities are
generally very low.
The average daily traffic (ADT) for the current project with 53 units is 324 trip ends; the conversion of the
building to 57 congregate care units results in ADT of 122 trip ends. Therefore, the difference between the
two types of occupancies for the same building is 201 trip ends..
ADT for the new assisted care building was calculated using trip generation rates for a nursing home.
Those rates are slightly higher than for congregate care living units even though these residents are in a
Physical condition that prevents them from driving. The higher rate can be presumably attributed to the
fact that these types of facilities have larger staffs and the need to accommodate visitors. The ADT for the
new building based on these standards is 166 trip ends.
The ADT for the new assisted care building (166) is less than the savings in ADT (201) created by the
change in occupancy at 61 Broad Street. Therefore, even with the construction of the new proposed
building, it appears that new trip generation levels will be less than levels associated with existing site
development, and will not result in localized impacts that require mitigation. Cumulative impacts are
addressed by the payment of traffic impact fees established by the Circulation Element and later codified by
ordinance.
Emeroencv Access
The Fire Department has reviewed submitted project plans and indicates that the applicant will be able to
mitigate existing life safety and fire protection deficiencies. The main issue with site expansion is the
require upgrading of the on-site private fire main system.
Neighbors have expressed concerns with the frequency of emergency vehicles coming to the site for both
safety and compatibility reasons. On-site driveways and parking areas need to be equipped to service
12
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Ls Than No
Sigtifimnt Significant Significant Impact
ER 158 96 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 13 Incorporated
emergency vehicles. Loading areas to accommodate emergency vehicles need to be provided on-site.
Mitigation Measures
7. In conjunction with required fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems, a graphic annunciator panel shall be
installed to the approval of the Fre Marshall.
8. Traffic control signals shall have emergency preemption devices installed to .expedite emergency
access.
9. An emergency vehicle loading area shall be provided for the new assisted living facility. The loading
area shall be located as to minimize noise and glare impacts to adjoining neighbors and shall not block or
otherwise compromise other required parking spaces.
On-Site Parking
Through the required planned development amendment and architectural review applications, the project's
parking will be evaluated in terms of its compliance with ordinance standards, efficiency of design and
landscaping. The building design may need to be modified if adequate parking consistent with City
standards cannot be provided. The existing planning review process for the project can adequately evaluate
the project's parking needs. No further mitigation measures are necessary.
7.`"BIOLO.GICAL:RESOURCES :.Would 3h2E" ro osal.affect
.! En ...g ed,t eatened or res a spedles or their habitats".
including but"not limited to ptantsF.#is.. ms cts, s. .. 11 X
' antma(s or:btrdsJ7 ..
b1 Locally designated species (e ghentage:trees)? X
._....... .
......
C). >[Localf�!designated .laturani commuhitie* f..e g oak [
forest;coastal habitat;:etc:::?>: ::.: ::::::::::::::::€ X
tl). Wetland habitat (e g ;marsh rJpartan:arid vernal pooh 12 X
..............
e) .Wildfife dis ersa[or.mi ra ion<tor.ndor.s? .. " X
Endangered. Threatened or Rare Species
The City's Informational Map Atlas indicates there are no sensitive plant or animal species on the site.
Heritage Trees
There are no heritage trees on the site. Through the architectural review process, any proposals to remove
trees or other significant vegetation will be evaluated. Compensatory tree planting may be required.
Riparian Habitat
The applicant has submitted a botanical survey prepared by V.L. Holland, Ph.D. dated December 1996 to
comply with the requirement contained in the zoning regulations for a biological survey to accompany creek
setback exception requests. Impacts to the riparian corridor were previously discussed under LUE Policy
2.2.11, Site Constraints, and included the mitigation measure for review of a landscaping/creek restoration
plan by the Architectural Review Commission.
Dr. Holland's report indicates that the section of the creek closest to Broad Street is the least disturbed a,
includes a pure stand of Coast Live Oak. Other sections of the creek have many introduced ornamental r
plants that are not native to riparian areas. The report suggests that a minimum of a 20-foot setback along
13
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 158-96 Issues Unless Impact
Pa a 14 mitigation
B Incorporated
the top of creek bank be maintained and recommends that the setback areas be planted with riparian
vegetation consisting of native, indigenous plants. Mitigation Measure #3 requires the submittal of a creek
restoration plan that is reviewed by the Architectural review Commission and other agencies with regulatory
control. No further mitigation is necessary.
8::;;ENERGY AND:MCNERAL RESOURCES €i Woiifd'the:. roposal•::
of Conflict with adop#ed anergy consewatlon plans? 2 X
} Use rsc4n renevvable resources in a wasteful antf
„ :.
inefficient:mannerT ,
2 X
cl> Ftesult;;�n'c�;t+`doss'�f?a;valability> sf:.aikrCtivvnfiiirteral>>- >%>€
resource that would be of future value to the region X
:. .. ..
and"the residents�f the State?
-:
The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional
energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design and
orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energy
conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code which establishes energy
conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Buildings proposed as part of this
project must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals through
architectural review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive
means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on
mechanical systems to maintain comfort.
To avoid using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner, the following standard mitigation is
recommended:
Mitigation Measure
10. Future site development shall incorporate:
' Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use. '
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives for tenant operational reasons,
buildings should be designed to exceed energy conservation standards in the California Energy Code by
10%.
AZARRS`ii€€:V1/ould::the::pro osa:. volt'.e:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::: : ..:....;.:....;....::.:.::..;::::::::::;::::::
::..: ..::.:.::
aJ` A rtsfc pf accidental p? loslon or Blease:of 1�aZardous
Hees {,ndudmgut;not;limited;to.
X
pesticides, chemicals or radiatton}7
bl : Possible Interference with.art'emergency response plan
or emergency Evacuantir> p[an?? X
cI :The creaeaf>h
hoz....
X
d) 'Exposure of people �a ewspng sources ofipotertrai
..........heahh hazards X
ej . lncreased'firehazardIn areas:WthfilamrrtabId:b.;sh,.,.•...;'
rass or trees?.;
-S2
14
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant SigrLificant significant Impact
Issues Unlew Impact
ER 158-96 mitigation
Page 15 Incorporated
.. ............................. .... .................
... .........
.......................
6:NMSL-'...WouidAh'e'..'. resu Vin:::::: ..................
............................................... ...........
proposa. .........
.......... .. ..........
bLi:Increase in::
existing noise:levels?'
. 13
........... ...............
.b) Exposure of peop.eto"unacceptable.m. .o. i:selevels.......
;:Avr"
defined;b.y';the;Sa" L drier L I ri:� I
San -61906i�G a Pa Noise
.......
...!pp
....................
�:r...........
..Elements
U:�7 .;;7 .................... ........
... ...... ........ .. F
The Noise Contour Map included in the Noise Element shows existing noise levels at the site to be 60
decibels (dB) Ldn and to continue to be at this same level with build-out of the City. The proposed uses are
noise sensitive as designated by the Noise Element. The Noise Element indicates that levels of 60 dB are
generally acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor areas for both residential and nursing
home uses.
Complying noise levels for interior spaces can be achieved through standard building techniques. The site
now and in the future will be in the "acceptable* category in terms of exterior noise. The proposed
occupancy change at 61 Broad Street will notably improve ambient conditions for nearby residents.
With the development of the new assisted care facility, there will be an increase in intermittent noise
associated with additional trips to the site by emergency vehicles. Mitigation Measure # 9 described in
Section 6., Transportation & Circulation, of this initial study requires that an emergency vehicle loading area
be provided that protects nearby residents from excessive noise and glare. No further mitigation is
necessary.
................................f ....................................... ......
have-an i.up. n;ib W. at
f ..t. .. ...6
W 6
1-1:: UBLIC.-S. RVICE&',:': .... Id'th' t.:.h a
...... ....P., ......................ou.....::.....e:VPpq§A; ....y!� result i�iWg�nee rh
.....................................................................................
...................................
...................
........................................
.....................
............. .........
. . .. .................................
..........
. .................. .........: ....... ........ X
.....................
.:ffsal:.................................
.........................................................................................
.......................................................................... "
.......................................... 1.1-do .......................
.................. ............ .......... X
......................... ..........
........... ..........
..................................................
C600 . . .................................... X
........... ......................................
..................................
...................
)dPiMin enarlm :1Ii"'?6Hities,...
ofaOUb :.fa'c" X
..........I.................. .. ... .... ........
c ...........................................................
Other: iovernmenta ::services?. X
The Fire Department has reviewed the project and noted potential issues and preliminary conditions of
approval. Mitigation Measures # 7 & 8 described above in Section 6., Transportation & Circulation, of this
initial study requires improvements to upgrade emergency warning and protection systems. No further
mitigation is necessary.
........ .. ................. ...... . . . . . . .. ... .... ...... ..................... .... .....................................................
1.2i::.UTILITIES.AND:SERVICE:.SYSTEMS or:new�s s ems.9C�supp
. .. .... ...........V.I.
or safistaritiaf alterations toaTie.
.............................
`utilities
...... .. ..... .......................... .................................
........... ......................
............................... ..........
............................................... .....................
...at U T A F g a S?:............................................I..............
X
..................................................... ..........
. .....................
................. ..............
.b) 1��mmunication X
...........
.. ..................F_................... ....................
moss.. .. . ........... . .............................
d1i
'Wat6r.'treatm. nt:pr....isiribUtio.n-::. .:. �.
Pr;:r.PgkQn6I:'
........... .................... .......... ... . ......
.....a.................
...............................
........... ..............
............................ -.......
....................................... :........; X
........a....a................. ....................................... ...........
................................ ............................................ -
............................ ............
............................ ..................................................
.......... ...................................
:or.................. ...........
septic-tank ;.............. .................... ............... ...........
dr ................................ X
........... .............:...........
................................ ........
............................... ............ ................ ......
............
..el,:,:7: torM:'.Water:;qr inage7 ................................. X
a
fl: ma's I ......
.....................
d ..... disipbsW'' 13 X
. ........ ...............................
............... .......
o Yeg
2 X
Sewer
Given that the new building will have large kitchen facilities to provide meals for residents, there is the
potential for concerns with the discharge of greases into the storm water system.
Mitigation Measure
11. The developer shall install an oil and grease separator at an appropriate location in the sewer system to
1- 5
15
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Issues
Unless
Impact ant Impact
ER 158-96 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 16 Incorporated
the approval of the City's Industrial Waste Coordinator.
Storm Drain
See previous discussion under Section 4., Water.
Solid Waste
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians
dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a.
threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity
by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by
50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this.project, consistent
with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated on the
project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials should be
submitted with the building permit application. The project should include facilities for both interior and
exterior recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source
Reduction and Recycling Element.
Mitigation Measure
12. The new assisted care facility shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling.
Water
The normal level of demand for city water exceeds the safe yield of supplies. The city has responded by
adopting measures to limit the 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.
13aAESTH -.
ou d.the. ro osal.................................:. . .
a ; .. :ect::a;acerlrc:€vista w sceni.cl igh.way?>a > €> >€> >€i '€ 2 X
l{:ii:'iEEi iii ii?ii»iSEi :[ :: �:::::);; i�::�:;>: <...t.......a:> :::>:::'7 E''. ''E€ _ '
}.._ ave a.demonstrable negative aesthetic„effect 2 X
:cJ ..Create....
ht or.lare?: :€ X
.:
The new proposed assisted care building will have three levels and be 38'4” tall. The maximum height'
limitation in the R-4 zone is 35 feet. The new building will be taller than nearby single-family residences
located directly to the south and east of it. A large building at this location has the potential to appear out
of scale with surrounding buildings and to impact views from these buildings of Cerro San Luis and Bishop
Peak. As noted in Section 1., Land Use & Planning, of this initial study, for the evaluation of LUE Policy
2.2.10, Compatible Development, Mitigation Measures 1& 2 are included to address compatibility and
aesthetic issues associated with the new building.
The parking lot located off of Broad Street will be reduced in size with development of the new assisted
care facility. Parking spaces will be generally screened from street views given their location between
existing and proposed buildings. However, with project development and upgrades to site features, there is
the potential for glare from parking lot lighting to impact nearby residences.
Mitigation Measure
13. Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto adjacent
properties. The specific design of lighting shall reviewed through the required architectural review process,
/—Say
16
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Luc Than No
significant Significant significant Impact
ER 158-96 Issues Unless Impact
Pae 17 mitigation
9 Incorporated
with special attention given.to the height and type of lighting fixtures.
74. CULTURAL RESO:UR.CES .€,Would the.' io osat:i:
al-° Dlsturb pafeonfologlcal resources? X
b) Dlsturb archaealogteal resources? 14 X
bl.:. Affect hlstorlcal restlufees� 14 X
Have V. potential to cause a physlCalss.Charige:whlch X
vvou(d`o U.C. unl ue ethniq.cuI ural values?
q..... <:
2StRCt:ex,Istrng relrglous or.sacr. :use wlthln;the :< '
X
otentiai rm act.area7.. "
The site, along Old Garden Creek, may have hosted Chumash use before European settlement. For that
reason, the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines has identified areas within 200 feet of
top of bank of Old Garden Creek as an "archaeologically sensitive area". This designation requires that the
applicant contract with a certified archaeologist to perform a surface survey and prepare a report of
findings.
Natural changes within the flood plain and soil disturbance from construction after European settlement
have probably removed or damaged any pre-historic or cultural materials associated with past uses at the
site. However, there may be pre-historic or cultural materials under the current surface level of the site.
Mitigation Measures:
14. An Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed prior to final architectural review of
the project (Phase I report). In addition, a Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE) will be
required for those areas of the site where excavation is proposed. The report shall note that a qualified
archaeologist will be retained to monitor project grading and trenching activities. If excavations encounter
significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction
activities which may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and appropriate
protective measures are approved by the Community Development Director. The Community Development
Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by
a qualified archaeologist.
15. If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called
in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply
with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and
construction plans for the project.
:::.. ..... .
1.5 :R :::: ........::.....__._.......................
ECREATION.....Would:the: rb osaf..:.:..............:....:....:.:::.:::::<::;:;::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::<:::::;:<::::::;::;<:::;::;; :,;:;::;:;:::::::::.;::::<:::::::::::::
::'a):":€ ricr a e,
e se.th.e€demand€for.i'neighb'o�tiood:or:ed ioria.l €' €
,,,; 13AP s;or,other recreat onaE facilities?................. alaE6
€bYJ affect±:exlsttng::recreatldnal°o ortunitiesZ i i..............................
; € X
.:.............
The change in occupancy at the existing apartments at 61 Broad Street will not increase the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. With the change in occupancy, the applicant
is proposing to add a two-level recreation room for the congregate care apartments. Similarly, the plans for
the new assisted care facility includes activity rooms on each level.
The existing tennis courts located on the Palomar Avenue side of the project will be removed to allow for
expansion of the adjacent parking lot. The tennis courts are in state of disrepair and have not been actively
used for some time. The Planning Commission previously approved the conversion of the tennis courts to
parking with the approval of Planned Development Amendment PD 1369 in 1988.
['96MANDATORYIINDINGS-0F:SIGNIFICANCE. :
:.::....:€`:€: i
17
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 158-96 Issues Unless Impact
Page 18 mitigation
Incorporated
poes.thei:protgct h.ave<thgpoten:.tla.l;to>degrade:;h,ei::;;: :> ::
quality of the'envfronment, sobstanttally reduce.the
habttat'of a frsh or wtld[tfe species, cause a -iSh,or>
w�ldl�fe;populat�ong:to drop;below self- wq taining;fevels
t........to ehmm%e a plant or antmat community, X
reduce the number or restnct'the range of a rare
endangered plant or animal or Ehmirtate important
... . ...
examples of;the Riajocperigtls:-.of`CaliforniaaiistoY:'.:
Yo
IbLUEY1.1. =
Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all the issue areas
checked in the table on page 3.
b.) Does E projectaiave;t 6 otential..............
to adh e:ve' 'h'
p sort X
term to the drsativanta e:of°ton term :environmental :.
9.. S ..a :: ...
..................... .
In this case, short- and long-term environmental goals are the same.
cl€ iJoesahe:project::have..:a.m.p.actsahatare:mdtvtdua.l.fy= :z ;_
Itm�ted,'blit cumulatively considerable _{^Cumufativtly
dabtiem
X
iffsiof. consierle":meansahat
cre
protect are con$iderable:when viewed tri;connec;ton,.,.,..:
vvtth ..........effects of the past projects, the effects:of
other current proaects, and he Effects of probable
. .. .:
fu r ::......... ..
r :: ::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.>:>::::[::»;:
The impacts identified in this initial study are in general specific to this project and would not be categorized
as cumulatively significant.
:-d).::-':Does ttie proiect Have"environm:ental:e.l .ects iwh:lcli'zniilk'
use.substantialadverse Effects on human beings, X
erthee:ditectl ::oenndtrectl }............
With incorporation of mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adv
humans. erse impacts on
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
...... ...
a::jet ana..ysis;ma.y 6e;;us.e...where;;;;pursuant to.ah ::Venn
e g, program E1R, or other CEQA process, .one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed,�n an ea�lter EIR.or Negative Declaration Section 15063'€fcl l3I
Dl. In this case a:discussion should:fdentif .the;followtn :items
al<:. Earher:anaf sis usetl. .ldenv :earlier anal ses and state where::the are ayatlable;for review
All analysis of environmental impacts associated with this project were included in this study, rather than
rel ing on revious analyses.
::: : ::..............................:.....
Im acts ade uatel ::addressed::: : ,::-::::::::::....>,.:;,,: :::,;,,::;::...., :::...._....,;::.;.,;:,::;;:.:::,:.....,......:...,..........:.,,:,..:...
P .... 4 ... Y identify which effects from the above checkitst were wrthtn the scope
of and adequately analyzed m art earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state:.
:_.vvhether_such::effects:yie�e addressed b :'coil: anon measures based onjth'e elanalysis: ..
Not applicable. arter
..
cl€ Mitt atiori mea , ......:::. .......... ..,...... ...........
9............:..:......sures<;;;:F..oreffects:ihat!:are:^:�.....:.,.. .::...::., .:.:..:;.:.....,.:,,.,..t ;_.::..,
...
:.,,..
......:...,
.....
....:.,... �......
........:,:...:..
ess than 5tgnd cant with Mtttgattod.incorporated, describe
t
... mtttgation;measures which were incorporated.or reftnetl from the ear[ter docune- t.:and.the,extenutd
::.vvhrch the atldcess safe-s id.-'::'CA hal ti 0 ris of theprofect
.
Not applicable.
Au...... Ptibbc Resources Gode Sections 210$3 an:d 210$7,
Reference::P bltc Resources rode Sections 210130 tc1, ..... x'21:780 3,X1082 1:VK, 2I08 , 2t083.3F
27093;321094,.2175.1,:Sundsrrom..: ..:. .1 of; endocmti,:2.Q2 Cal A .3d.29611988i:aeonofffv.. ::...
18
N.....................tead �u 'evisors, 222 CaL A '337
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of SLO Housing Element, September 1994.
2. City of SLO General Plan Digest, December 1996.
3. Cal Poly Institutional Studies, 'Poly View" 1986-1996.
4. City of SLO Building Division Annual reports.
5. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
6. City of San Luis Obispo Seismic Safety Element, July 1975.
7. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (community Panel 060310 0005 C) dated July 7, 1981.
8. APCD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook", August 1995.
9. City of San Luis Obispo Grading Regulations, SLO Municipal Code Section 15.040 X.
10. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 4' Edition.
11. City of SLO Informational Map Atlas.
12. Botanical Survey of Old Garden Creek prepared by V.L. Holland, Ph.D., December 1996.
13. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence & Associates;
July 1994.
14. City of SLO Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995.
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
1. Mitigation Measure: The Planning Commission will need to approve a height variance through
the planned development amendment application for the building to be as
tall as it is proposed.
Monitoring Program: Review of the height exception by the Planning Commission as part of its
consideration of the Planned Development amendment.
2. Mitigation Measure: The Architectural Review Commission shall evaluate the appropriateness
of the new building's scale (height, bulk and massing) in terms of
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The issue of impacts to
the view corridors of nearby residents shall also be considered.
Monitoring Program: Compatibility issues shall be addressed by the both the Planning
Commission and the Architectural Review Commission with their review of
the project. Compliance with the conditions of both these review bodies
shall be overseen by Planning staff during building permit plan check.
3. Mitigation Measure: The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping/creek restoration plan
along with plans submitted for final review and approval .by the
Architectural Review Commission. The plan shall incorporate the
recommendations of the botanical survey prepared by V.L. Holland, Ph.D.
dated December 1996 and incorporated into this study be reference.
The plans shall be routed to the City's Resource Manager for review and
comment, and will also require the review and approval of other agencies
with regulatory control over work done in the riparian corridor of Garden
Creek, specifically the State Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission will ultimately approve the
landscaping and creek restoration plan. Community Development
Department staff will coordinate with other regulatory agencies with
jurisdiction over plans, review building permit plans to insure consistency _
with ARC approvals and provide field inspections to confirm tha
installation complies with plans.
4. Mitigation Measure: Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety
Element, a detailed soils engineering report needs to be submitted at the
19
• time of building permit which considers special grading and construction
P 9 9
techniques necessary to address the potential for liquefaction. It shall
identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation
recommendations to ensure against unstable soil conditions. Grading and
building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils
engineering report.
Monitorina Program: The Community Development Department staff will review plans in
conjunction with the soils engineering report through the building permit
Ian check process.
5. Mitigation Measure: Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each
drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from
run off before it enters the creek directly or through the storm water
system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient
pollutant removal.
Monitoring Program: The Community Development and the Utilities Department staff (Industrial
Waste Coordinator) will review plans for compliance through the building
permit plan check process and subsequent inspections.
6. Mitigation Measure: Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2), 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 project 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;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or
transported onsite or off-site;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping, 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.
Monitorino Prooram: Grading practices shall be monitored by the Community Development
Department staff through field inspections during project construction.
7. Mitigation Measure: In conjunction with required fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems, a graphic
annunciator panel shall be installed to the approval of the Fire Marshall.
_Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
detailed plans submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire
Marshall.
S. Mitigation Measure: Traffic control signals shall have emergency preemption devices installed
to expedite emergency access.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
detailed plans submitted for building permit primarily by the City's Fire
Marshall. G
s`
20
9. Mitigation Measure: An emergency vehicle loading area shall be provided for the new assisted
living facility. The loading area shall be located as to minimize noise and
glare impacts to adjoining neighbors and shall not block or otherwise
compromise other required parking spaces.
Monitoring Program: Design of the emergency vehicle loading area shall be reviewed and
monitored through the review of plans during architectural review and
building permit plan check.
10. Mitigation Measure: Future site development shall incorporate:
• Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
• Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
In the event operable windows and skylights are not feasible alternatives
for tenant operational reasons, buildings should be designed to exceed
energy conservation standards in the California Energy Code by 10%.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development
Department staff.
Mitigation Measure: The developer shall install an oil and grease separator at an appropriate
location in the sewer system to the approval of the City's Industrial Waste
Coordinator.
Monitoring Program: The Utilities Department staff (Industrial Waste Coordinator) will review •
plans for compliance through the building permit plan check process and
subsequent inspections.
12. Mitigation Measure: The new assisted care facility shall incorporate facilities for interior and
exterior on-site recycling.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit
primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
13. 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
reviewed through the required architectural review process, with special
attention given to the height and type of lighting fixtures. V
Monitoring Program: Parking lot lighting shall be reviewed and monitored through the review of
tans during architectural review and building permit plan check.
14. Mitigation Measure: An Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed prior to
final architectural review of the project (Phase I report). In addition, a
Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE) will be required for
those areas of the site where excavation is proposed. The report shall
note that a qualified archaeologist will be retained to monitor project
grading and trenching activities. If excavations encounter significant
paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials,
then construction activities which may affect them shall cease until the
extent of the resource is determined and appropriate protective measures
are approved by the Community Development Director. The Community
Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of
discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified
archaeologist.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of/ 4
21
• plans submitted for architectural review and a buildingpermit b h
P y the
Community Development Department staff and subsequent inspections.
15. Mitigation Measure If pre-historic Native American artifacts are . encountered, a Native
American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to
document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply
with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be
included on the grading and construction plans for the project.
Monitoring Program Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development
Department staff.
The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental
impacts. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the
above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review.
hereby agree to the mitigation measures and monitoring program outlined above.
Applicant Date
22
BOTANICAL SURVEY
OLD GARDEN CREEK
BROAD STREET TO RAMONA AVENUE
THE VILLIAGE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
by
V. L. holland, Ph.D.
Plant and-Restoration Ecology
1697 El Cerrito Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
December 1996
/40
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................1
SURVEYMETHODS.................................................................................1
DESCRIPTION OF THE VEGETATION.........................................................1
RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES......................: ....................,........2
IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................3
.REFERENCES .......................................................................................4
E\' R,ODUCTION
This report evaluates the riparian vegetation along Old Garden Creek from Ramona
Avenue to Broad Street as it traverses The Village located at 61 - 65 Broad St. in the City
of San Luis Obispo, California. The site adjacent to the creek has apartments, and there are
paved parking lots and driveways along the length of this section of the creek. The
pavement extends to the creek bank in most places leaving only a small corridor of riparian
and wetland habitat along the creek. The riparian vegetation and associated wetlands are
variable along the creek,but in general it is a mosaic of native,weedy,and ornamental
plants.
SURVEY METHODS
A field reconnaissance of the proposed disturbance areas was carried out in December
1996. The field surveys consisted of canvassing the creek and riparian corridor on foot
and identifying the plants and vegetation. The plant species found in identifiable condition
were noted and listed including rare or endangered plant species. However,it is important
to note that this is not a complete list of the plants present on the site: Plant species
composition,especially herbaceous cover,varies seasonally and annually. During my on-
site survey in December 1996,many of the herbaceous plant species were not in
identifiable condition. Some herbs were identified by the dry remains of last year's
standing crop or immature seedlings. Most of the trees and shrubs were identifiable from
vegetative features. •
DESCRIPTION OF THE VEGETATION
The creekside and channel consist of a corridor of riparian vegetation and wetlands.
Riparian communities are common along waterways such as drainage channels,
streams, lakes and marshes. These waterways,drainage channels and areas of high water
tables often have a striking influence on natural vegetation of the area Many of the plant
species_found in riparian habitats are restricted to the flood plain,banks of streams,
drainage channels,and other areas where they have access to a shallow water table.
On the project site, Old Garden Creek is lined by a riparian vegetation that has been ,
disturbed by the past developments and by the planting of ornamental plants. However,
there are also several native plants mixed with the exotics. The larger trees in the area have
been mapped by John Wallace and Associates and are shown on their topographic map
dated September 27, 1996. As shown on the map, the section of the creek nearest Ramona
Avenue is open with a few scattered Salix lasiolepis(arroyo willows), Quercus agrifolia
(coast live oak),and ornamentals along the creek bank. The section of creek nearest Broad
Street, however,has a closed canopy woodland consisting of almost entirely of coast live
oaks. In addition,there are several small trees that were not included on the map such as
coast live oak
Native trees along the creek include the following:
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak --
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Botanical Survey of Old Laarden Creek, SLO 2
Exotic or ornamental trees along the creek include the following:
Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum eucalyptus
Fraxinus sp. Ash
Juglans sp. Walnut
Ligustrum vulgare Privet
Phoenix canariensis Date palm
Pittosporum undulawn Pittosporum
Pinus halenpensis. Allepo pine
Schinus molle Peruvian pepper-tree
Common native shrubs along the creek include:
Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort
Baccharis pilularis Coyote bush
Rubus ursinus California blackberry
Solanum douglasii Black nightshade
Common exotic shrubs along the creek include:
Cotoneaster sp. Cotoneaster
. Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle
Pyracantha sp. Firethom
Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry
Several noxious weeds have invaded the riparian area and should be monitored. Two
of the plant species,Hedera helix(English ivy) and Senecio mikanioides(German-ivy),
should be removed and monitored on a regular basis. They are very invasive and can have
a detrimental effect on the other plants along the creek
The creek channel supports small patches of freshwater marsh in areas where the
water flow is slow and the water forms ponds. In these areas,the common plants are ,
Scirpus microcarpus(Small-fruited bulrush) and Typha angustifolia (Narrow-leafed
cattail). Along the drier portions of the creek channel Foeniculum vulgare(sweet fennel),
Pennisetum clandestinum(Kikiyu grass)and Mentha spicata(Spearmint)have invaded in
places.
Other plants found along Old Garden Creek in the project site are listed on Appendix 1.
RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
No rare or endangered species were found on the site. Because some plants were not
in identifiable condition,I cannot state with absolute certainty that no rare plants occur on
the site. In a previous study of Old Garden Creek on the northside of Ramona Avenue,I
found Sanicula hoffinannii(Hoffman's sanicle). It is possible that Hofinmann's sanicle
occurs on the site,but I did not find in during my December 1996 survey. I do not think
any rare plants are present on the subject site.
Botanical Survey of Old txarden Creek, SLO 3
EVIPACTS AND RECONIlVIENDATIONS '
The site adjacent to the creek is already developed with apartments,parking lots, and
driveways. The paved areas extend to the creek bank in most places leaving a small
corridor of riparian habitat. The plans provided by John Wallace and Associates,
September 27, 1996 show the creek channel,the bridges, and the larger trees along the
creek. The section of Old Garden Creek on the site has been included in the landscaping of
the site and consequently has many ornamental plants such as the fan palms, date palms,
pittosporum,Japanese honeysuckle,ivy, and Himalayan blackberry. However,the section
of creek nearest to Broad Street lined by a pure stand of Quercus agrifolia (Coast live oak)
is the least disturbed section of creek on the site. This section should not be altered;
although,it could be enhanced with native plants in the understory.
During the development of the proposed project,no additional paving into the riparian
areas should occur. If possible a minimun setback of 20 feet should be established along
the creek. This setback should be vegetated with riparian vegetation consisting of native,
indigenous plants.
I recommend that a revegetation plan be prepared for the riparian habitat. This plan
should include enhancing the riparian habitat with native plantings and when possible
replacing the ornamental plants with native trees,shrubs, and herbs indigenous to riparian
habitats in the area. Common native trees that could be used include Platanus racemosa
(sycamore),Populus balsamifera spp. trichocarpa (black cottonwood),Salix spp.
(willows), Quercus agrifolia(coast live oak),Myrica californica (wax-myrtle),
Umbellularia californica (California bay-laurel),Sambucus mexicana (elderberry),
Heteromeles arbutifolia(toyon), and Acer negundo (box-elder). Native tree and shrub
plantings along the creek will diversify and enhance the beauty and habitat value of the
riparian zone.
Attempts should be made to remove the noxious weeds from the riparian area
especially the ivy which is a highly evasive plant and a major problem in riparian areas
along the central coast. Periodically the creek should be checked to make sure no other
exotics invade and become established to the detriment of the native trees and shrubs.
Run-off from the project into the waterway should be carefully evaluated. Corrective
measures should be taken to make sure that no pollutants such as oil,petroleum distillates.
herbicides,pesticides, etc.enter the water. Currently, at least one large drain empties
water from the paved areas directly into the creek. During my site surveys,I noted that
water going into the creek was contaminated with petroleum products left by the cars in the
parking lots.
The riparian woodland should not be disturbed in anyway other than removal of
exotics and planting natives. It should be used only for passive recreation such as bird
watching, and access to the creek should be limited. If these and the other
recommendations are followed, the project should not have a significant impact on the
vegetation of the riparian habitat.
/� (oS
Botanical Survey of Old%.. rden Creek, SLO 4
REI'�TCES
Abrams,L. 1944. Illustrated flora of the Pacific States: Washington, Oregon;California.
Stanford U. Press, CA.
CA Department of Fish and Game. 1996. Natural Diversity Data Base(NDDB). Special
Plants List. 111 pp.
Capelli, M. H., and S.J. Stanley. 1984. Preserving Riparian Vegetation along
California's South Central Coast. pp. 673-686 'n E. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix
(eds.), California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation and Productive
Management. University of California Press,Berkeley.
Hickman,J. C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson Manual. Higher plants of California. Univ.
California Press,Berkeley,Los Angeles and London. 1400 pp.
Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Description of Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. State of California,The Resources Agency,Department of Fish and
Game.
Holland, V. L. and D. Keil. 1995. California Vegetation. Kendall-Hunt Publ. Co.,Iowa.
516pp.
Hoover,R. F. 1970. The vascular plants of San Luis Obispo County,California.
University of California Press,Berkeley, California. 350 pp.
Munz, P. A. 1968. Supplement to A California Flora. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Munz, P. A., and D. D. Keck. 1959. A California Flora. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Skinner,Mark and Bruce M. Pavlik. 1994. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of
Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society,
Special Publication No.-1 (Fifth Edition), Sacramento
Sawyer,John and Todd Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation.
California Native Plant Society. 471 pp.
Warner, R. E. and K. M. Hendrix (eds.). 1984. California riparian systems. Ecology,
Conservation and Productive Management. U. C. Press, Berkeley. 1035 pp.
/- GG
Botanical Survey of Old u. rden Creek, SLO 5
APPENDIX 1.
PLANT SPECIES ALONG OLD GARDEN CREEK
61 - 65 BROAD STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Scientific Name Common name Status
Anagallis arvensis Scarlet pimpernel Introduced weed
Anthemis cotula Dog-fennel Introduced weed
Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort Native
Aster chilensis Aster Native
Avena fatua Common wild oats Introduced weed
Baccharis pilularis Coyote bush Native
Brassica nigra Black mustard Introduced weed
Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Introduced weed
Bromus sp. Brome grass Introduced weed
Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Introduced weed
Chawwnthe floribunda Chasmanthe Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Corium maculatum Poison-hemlock Introduced weed
Cotoneaster sp. Cotoneaster Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Dipsacus sativus Fuller's tease; Introduced weed
Erodium botrys Storkbill filaree Introduced weed
Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree Introduced weed
Erodium moschatum Greenstem filaree Introduced weed
Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum eucalyptus Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Euphorbia peplus Petty spurge Introduced weed
Foeniculum vulgare Fennel Introduced weed
Fraxinus sp. Ash Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Fumaria parviflora Fumitory Introduced weed
Geranium dissectum Cutleafed geranium Introduced weed
He era helix English ivy Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Hirschfeldia incana Perennial mustard Introduced weed
Iris sp. Iris Escaped or persisting from cultivation
luglans sp. Walnut Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Introduced weed
Lmnarclda aurea Goldentop grass Introduced weed
L igustrum vulgare Privet Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Lolium multiflorum Annual ryegrass Introduced weed
Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Malva nicaeensis Mallow Introduced weed
Malva parviflora Mallow Introduced weed --
Medicago polymorpha Bur-clover Introduced weed
Melilotus albus White sweet-clover Introduced weed
/-G7
Botanical Survey of Old%.rrden Creek, SLO g
Melilotus indicus Yellow sweet-clover Introduced weed
Mentha spicata Spearmint Introduced weed
Osteospermum eklonis African daisy Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda-buttercup Introduced weed
Pennisetum clandestinum Kikiyu grass Introduced weed
Phalaris aquatica Harding grass Introduced weed
Phoenix canariensis Date palm Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Pinus halenpensis Aleppo pine Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Pittosporwn undulatum Pittosporum Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Plmitago lanceolate English plantain Introduced weed
Plantago major Broadleafed plantain Introduced weed
Polygonum arenastrum Knotweed Introduced weed
Prunus sp. Cherry Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Pyracantha sp. Firethorn Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Quercus agrifolia Cliavek Native
Ricinus communis Castor-bean Introduced weed
Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Rubus ursinus California blackberry Native
Rumex conglomeratus Knotted dock Introduced weed
Rumex crispus Curly dock Introduced weed
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow Native
Sambucus mexicana Elderberry Native
Sanicula hoff7wnnii Hoffmann's sanicle Native
Schinus molle Peruvian pepper-tree Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Scirpus macrocarpus Small-fruited bulrush Native
Senecio mikanioides German-ivy Introduced weed
Silybum marianum Milk-thistle Introduced weed
Solanum douglasii Black nightshade Native
Srellaria media Chickweed Introduced weed ,
Taraxacum off:cinale Dandelion Introduced weed
Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison-oak Native
Tragopogon porrifolius Salsify Introduced weed .
Tropaeolum majus Garden-nasturtium Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Typha angustifolia Narrow-leafed cattail Native
Vicia sativa Vetch Introduced weed
Vinca spp. Perwinkle Escaped or persisting from cultivation
Vulpia myuros Rattail fescue Introduced weed
Xanthium strumarium Coc ebur Introduced weed
Zantedeschia aethiopica Calla-lily Escaped or persisting from cultivation
From: Spencer Meyer
To: SLOIPO.PRICCI
Date: 1/28/97 6:12pm
Subject: 55-61 Broad Street, MS 156-96
Just an FYI
We have met with Hamish Marshal (Smith & Co. ) , Randy Rea (APS) and Darrell Goo
(Wallace & Associates) regarding area deficiencies. They have addressed and '
appear to be willing to mitigate (at least conceptually) , FD concerns
regarding the above referenced Minor Subdivision. Final incorporation of this
items on their submittal should resolve all major area deficiency (FD)
concerns.
CC: SLO CITY.FIRE.PDOUGHER
i -Gf
SITE /GRADING COMMENTS
DATE: January 28, 1997
SUBJECT: 61 Broad (New Senior Housing Facility)
COMMENTS:
1 Our analysis shows that a total of 5 accessible parking stalls
must be provided. The accessible parking shall be evenly
distributed within the site at the various accessible entries.
Specifically we would expect to see accessible parking provided at
the new building entrance, the reworked parking adjacent the
remodeled building on parcel 2, and parking adjacent the new
accessible bridge. This evaluation is based upon UBC code section
1118A.1 which requires a minimum of 5% of the visitor parking .be
accessible, this excludes the covered parking located along the
Ramona Street side of the existing building which does not appear
to meet visitor parking requirements.
Bob Bishop
�" 70
From: Neil Havik
To: PRICCI
Date: 1/6/97 11:35am
Subject: The Village at Garden Creek
Pam, I have reviewed the plans submitted for this project and have the
following comments:
1. It appears upon a site visit that no new construction is anticipated
within the creek setback areas, except for a new pedestrian bridge.
2. The project sponsors do not appear to be aware of the definition of the
creek setback, measured from the top -of bank OR the dripline of riparian
vegetation. In this instance it may not be critical, due to other factors
discussed below.
3. V. L. Holland's report recommends that a revegetation program for the
creek be prepared. I concur with that recommendation, and that we view this
project as an opportunity to enhance this reach of the creek, in line with V.
L. 's recommendations.
4. It appears that the paving on the south side of the new building will be
removed. If that is so, I would see such an improvement, plus a revegetation .
or enhancement program for the creek as suitable mitigation for the new
construction.
5. There should be an open space easement placed over the creek area, and
novation of the existing drainage and maintenance easement. Perhaps these can
be combined.
Please keep me informed of progress on this project. I would like to be
involved in the development of the revegetation plan for the creek.
Thanks.
';.i.
ERRM
PROJECT REVIEW
February 3, 1997
To: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
Vi a: Jerry Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer
From: Mike Bertaccini, Engineering Assistant
Subject: SS- 61 Broad Street, Minor Subdivision SLO 96-1 S7
(Planning File Nos MSI 57--96;ARC,ER 158-96)
MAP CONDITIONS
. Public R/W
1. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6'wide public utility easement and 10' wide street tree
easement along all public street frontages, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
2. The subdivider shall install a City Standard handicap ramp at the corner of Ramona and
Palomar, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Water, Sewer& Utilities
3. All parcels shall be served by individual water, sewer and utilities services, except parcel 1'
(proposed parking lot). Separate facilities for parcel 1 shall be deferred until the development
of a building on said parcel. However, if the proposed parking lot is to include irrigated
landscape then a separate water service shall be installed for that parcel.
Grading & Drainage
4. Any bridging of the creek shall be in compliance with the City's Flood Management Policy
Book (specifically regarding clear spanning of creeks, etc.) and approved by the City Council,
Fish & Game and the Corp. of Engineers.
5. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or
removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works, Corp. of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish& Game.
/- 7Z
Mapping and Misc. Requirements
6. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's. EC's, etc., shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network At least two control points shall be used and a
tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3:5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad(Digital
Interchange Format, DXF)for Geographic Information System(GIS) purposes, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
7. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System
of Units (metric system) if submitted after June 30, 1996. The English System of Units may
be used on the final map where necessary(e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in
the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City
Engineer.
ARC CONDITIONS
Trees
1. A tree protection plan and tree preservation bond shall be submitted prior to any further
development near or adjacent to the creek, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. •
Any future development shall not encroach within the dripline of any tree determined to be
significant by the City Arborist. (See the additional attached comments from Todd Martin)
Transportation
1. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The developer shall install bike racks near the entrance of each building (two bicycles per
rack). Each building shall have bike lockers for two bicycles, or, comparable enclosed spaces.
Utilities '
3. A water allocation shall be developed for the proposed building on Parcel 3. Water
allocations may also need to be developed for Parcels 2 and 4, if the remodel results in
increased demand on the water system. The City's Water Conservation division can help in
determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation
can be reached by calling 781-7258.
4. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Both
the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter serving
each parcel.
5. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so
that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If
it is discovered that an off-site deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the
. deficiency as a part of the overall project.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
A. All buildings shall have oil/sand separators to the satisfaction of the City's Industrial Waste
Coordinator(Dale Karns, 781-7425).
B. EPA Requirement: A Genera!Construction Activity Storm Water Permit is 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. Stone water discharges of less.
than five acres, that are a part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a
permit. A permit is 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.
File. Broad 55-61 pl map
F!���jll7 a1 P !P hlillif��n• I'IJ!'I
city
of san tuis oBispob
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
TO: bUke Bertaccini DATE: 1-22-97.
FROid: Todd Martin, City Arborist SUBJECT: 55 & 61 BROAD ST.
(805) 781-7220
JJ One tree required per 35 lineal feet of street frontage or any part
thereof.
Trees are to be planted in the sidewalk with lids and a deep root planter.
Trees are to be planted 7.5 feet to 10 feet behind the sidewalk with no
deep root planter.
Trees are to be planted within 7.5 feet behind the sidewalk with a deep
root planter.
J Trees are to be planted in the parkway with a deep root planter.
jam# Trees are to -be planted to City specifications.
J_J City is to inspect the tree(s) and planting hole(s) prior to planting.
J Existing trees: All existing trees are to remain with the exception of
7 palms. No grade changes allowed within dripline df any oaks If asphalt
beneath dripline of oaks next to creek is removed during Construction
protective fencing will be installed immediately to protect the dripline area
from construction traffic. No materials or vehicles are to be stored'or parked
within the dripline of anv oak. Citv Arboirst will be notified prior to removal
of this asphalt.
i_XJ 15-gallon stock.
J_( Other than IS-gallon stock:
Type of trees: Quercus agrifolia
J_J 30 ft. corner cut offs (see following exa=ple) :
PROPErzrr
No PL/1STINGT� j
LINE
OY�TIN < ' /-
rrlts AREk �t
. February 14,. 19$7`
Architectural Review Commission �� V
City of San Luis Obispo FB 1.� F(1
City Hall YoF `' 199j
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Gentlemen & Ladies: Re: ARC 158-96 - 66 Broad Street
'e are concerned about the above project for several reasons
and urge that you give careful consideration to the following
items :
1. On-site parkin We believe that not enough parking
spaces are planned for. Among 64 residents there will
probably be a fe-w who have vehicles. There will also
be cars owned by staff and visitors, plus service
people of all kinds : food, linen service, maintenance
and repair people, fire trucks and ambulances .
The entire west side of the block, from the creek north
to Ramona, is red, no parking at any time, so that the
property itself has no space for street parking, and any
. overflow would come over to our side of the block.
Cars seem; to attract more cars, and we would like to
avoid having the dismal scene on Chorro, 1-iurray, etc .
2. The creek: Care should be taken to assure that the
new facility will not increase run-off into the creek
which fills ur much more rapidly now than in 1969 and
1973, before vast amounts of the hillsides were paved
over with huge houses, roads, driveways, etc.
3. Set 3a E;e % a like to s the se Ick in re ed
to,2. the sam as our resi 'ences . Tr • s would �d
to 91e_ d the it ins into "h surrou i g area Csee Addendun.
4 . Loss of View: Three residences will probably lose their
treasured view of Bishop's Peak. Kost of us have already
lost ours because of the Village itself and tree growth.
Sincerely,
Helen ;!. Aleder, 8 Broad
/ fes San Luis Cbispo, Ca. 93405
6�2A,&L 74 99oAl CIT,
7
Addendum to replace Item No. 3 and to include Item No 5 '
3. The new building should be set back even with The Village
building on 0road . Fence and hedge should reruain and
extend south to the creek, with driveway removed.
5. A two-story building would blend more easily into our
residential street.
rLipz
�` UZI
. WILLIAM R. McLENNAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
RAILROAD SOLIARE
1880 SANTA BARBARA•SECOND FLOOR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
(805)5"-7950
s f99>
Dei
Architectural Review Board/ February 27, 1997
Planning Commission Members
San Luis Obispo, California
Re: Proposed Development at 61 Broad Street
(The Village, Village West and Heritage at Garden Creek)
Dear Board and Commission Member,
I live at 706 Meinecke and am directly affected by this development. I have
. summarized points of concern and listed specific suggestions that I hope will encourage our
"group imaginations"and make this a better project.
I
SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
My concerns relating to the proposed"Heritage" and"Village West"projects
generally are the massive size of the proposed building, the lack of open space and adequate
parking, traffic congestion, and the impact of the present design on the existing neighborhood. .
My hopes are that the project will add open space, preserve neighborhood ambiance and mountain
views, provide a congenial atmosphere for citizens of all ages, promote a pedestrian life style and
add to the livability of the neighborhood. The following are specific suggestions and/or concerns:
1. The proposed"Heritage"building is massive and inconsistent with the
neighborhood. Its size should be scaled back to blend with the neighborhood and avoid blocking
residential views of Bishop's Peak.
It may be possible to reduce the impact of the building by eliminating the inner
courtyard and utilizing perimeter outdoor space. Support functions (ie office space) could be
relocated. Two smaller buildings could be built and the scale of each reduced in size. The
building could be"relocated" to the Ramona site and kitchen/office/therapy space shared with The
Village.
Does the building really need to be this big to be profitable, or is this design simply an
_ attempt to maximize the site?
1 �-78
2. Open space should be included in the project. For example, the present setback
on Broad Street is 18 feet. By doubling this space to 36 feet, open space conducive to
neighborhood enjoyment would be included in the project. Of note, the building owner has
suggested purchasing the house across the creek on Broad Street for a park.
3. All visitors, residents and employees must be able to park on the site and
employees must have assigned parking spaces.
4. P.D. zoning does not mean the project can be under parked. Parking for elder
housing is listed as one space per dwelling unit. The parking ratio of.5 parking spaces per unit is
inconsistent with the prior approval for this project, does not seem to comply with zoning
regulations and will not provide adequate parking for this project. The Village is completely
different in function and parking needs than the proposed Heritage at Garden Creek; parking for
each should be considered separately.
5. Density calculations do not seem accurate and a maximum occupant capacity
has not been set as required by the code. Maximum occupant capacity should be considered when
parking needs are considered for this project.
6. Planned Developments are encouraged to: "use imagination and innovation to
increase the quality of life with open space, art, adequate parking and a pedestrian environment."
More needs to be done to meet these goals.
7. Developing the Ramona/Palomar site should be explored. A building on this
site seems to be less intrusive to the neighborhood and would not block the view of Bishop's Peak-
from
eakfrom Broad Street.
8. The detrimental effect of the automobile bridge across the creek must be
studied so it does not harm the creek ecosystem. Drainage and flood issues must also. be
addressed: is drainage flow adequate?
9. Traffic flow and traffic should be considered by the Board/Commission. The
project is designed so most parking is located at the Ramona/Palomar corner. Will this impact the
neighborhood with visitors and employees parking in the neighborhood? Does the design impact
Broad street (already impacted with excess traffic)?
10. More data is needed from the Village. Is the project limited to residents 62
years-of-age and older? How many employees will work at the total project? What is the
maximum number of residents?. How many residents have automobiles? Will resident parking be
restricted? How many two bedroom units are present? How many are one bedroom units?
2 -7
II
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD
The proposed"Heritage"building is a massive, 39 foot high building that
incorporates no open space and is set back 15 feet from the sidewalk. It is built around a center
courtyard and includes 64 living units, a full restaurant and kitchen, office space, therapy room,
recreation rooms and employee lounge. This is not a simple apartment building, but a multi-use
residential care complex with a substantial number of employees.
The Village (125 units) contains one and two bedroom apartments. The minimum
age is 55 years old and there are no limitations on the number of residents-per unit or the
ownership of multiple automobiles. There are approximately 40 employees who work in this
building in food service area and administration. At present, approximately 10 parking spaces on
the north(Ramona) side of the building are "staff only"and approximately 20 spaces are
"res:rved"for those who pay an extra fee.
The Village West ( 57 units) will be remodeled to include group dining rooms, a
kitchen and one and two bedroom units. A new bridge will cross the existing creek to a parking
area for six automobiles. It is presumed the age restriction will be 55 and there will be no
occupancy limit or automobile restrictions.
The entire project is surrounded by single story residential housing. The adjacent
shopping center is also low rise, as are most of the commercial buildings in the area.
This historic neighborhood is continually under assault by traffic and commercial
intrusion and struggles to keep its neighborhood atmosphere; "neighborhood calming" efforts (ie
the bumps) were removed by public pressure. The east section of Murray Street was destroyed
by poor planning: Blood Bank parking is inadequate and the street is perpetually congested.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN MAY PROVIDE INADEQUATE PARKING
A. The Village does not.meet Section J requirements.
Section 17.16.060(n clearly delineates the parking reduction allowed for senior
citizen dwellings by stating:
Housing occupied exclusively by persons aged 62 or older may
provide one-space per dwelling unit or one space per four
occupants of a group quarter.
Neither the Village nor the proposed developments meet this requirement: the
stated parking to dwelling ratio is .5 and the age requirement is 55 years of age.
3 �—��
a. The proposed .5 parking space per unit is inappropriate and inadequate
The proposed parking ration of.5 parking spaces per unit for the entire project
may be inadequate. When the Village was originally approved as a planned development, the
parking ratio was calculated as .5 spaces per unit plus one space for each five units. There is no
apparent justification for the proposed change in the previous parking ratio.
As noted above, the Village and the Village West contain one and two bedroom'.
apartments with the potential for multiple occupancy in each unit. There is no restriction on.
automobile ownership in the complex. It is unclear why this ratio was chosen or why it is
believed to be appropriate in this case.
A comparison of parking for other uses is necessary(see Zoning Regulations,
Table 6):
Boarding/rooming house, dormitory require "One space per 1.5 occupants or 1.5
spaces per bedroom, whichever is greater"
Dwellings: One per studio apartment: 1-1/2 for first bedroom plus ''/z for each
additional bedroom in a unit, plus one for each five units in developments of more than five
units."
Hospitals: one space per bed
c. Auxiliary businesses parking must be calculated separately
The parking ratios discussed above apply to dwellings; when restaurants, offices,
beauty parlors and other uses are included in the complex, those functions must be separately
calculated, based on a fair interpretation of the intent of the zoning regulations.
The parking regulations applicable to motels, hotels and bed and breakfast 'wins
are clearly illustrative of this intention to provide additional parking in a"mixed use" situation.'
The section in Table 6 reads as follows:
Motels, hotels, beds and breakfast inns: One per room or group of
rooms to be occupied as a suite, plus one for resident manager's
quarters plus eating/assembly area requirements.
This total project will have multiple restaurants and a large staff. While these
businesses are not"public oriented," they still have large staffs that must park somewhere. It
clearly violates the language and intention of the zoning regulations to combine multiple uses and
still claim a parking ratio only for dwellings. A review of The Heritage reveals the following:
Kitchen square footage: 1,342 @ 1 space per 100sf = 13.42 spaces required
• 4 �'g�
Dining rooms
(3 plus employee) 5,611 @ 1 space per 60sf = 93 spaces required
Office/business 1737 @ 1 space per 300sf= 5.79 spaces required
In addition to the above, the Village has a kitchen and cafeteria and a staff of
approximately 3040 employees. The Village West will include dining facilities. Parking for
these employees must be provided on the site.
d. There is no provision for staff/visitor parking
Presently, there are approximately 10 spaces designated as "staff parking"at The
Village. There is no provision in the present proposal for staff parking; there will be 50-70 staff
employees in this entire project, although not all will park at the same time. Some provision must
be made to prevent them from parking in the neighborhood. The residents will also be visited by
family members; where will they park? Of note, the shopping center next to the Village is private
and not an available resource.
V
THE PROJECT MAY VIOLATE THE INTENTION OF 17.50.010
. Section 17.50.010 (Planned development zones) states:
"'The planned development zone is intended.to "encourage imaginative
development and effective use of sites. It does this by allowing more variation in project design
than normal standards would allow. Such variation from normal standards should provide
benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which could not be provided
under conventional regulations . . .
An out-of-scale building that is incongruous with the neighborhood and provides
no open space is not "imaginative." "Benefits to the community," as used in Section
17.62.040b, section 4 include, among others, " usable open space, adequate parking,
compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on" or, as stated in section 6, "benefits
such as parking, open space, landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which
would not be feasible under conventional development standards." None of these criteria are
met by this project.
VI
COMPLIANCE WITH DENSITY REQUIREMENTS IS UNCLEAR
SECTION 17.16.010 provides the formula for determining density. The
calculation includes formulas for computing net acreage, "cross-slope" and`unit values" for
different types of dwelling for R4 zones. This density calculation influences the maximum units
per acre and the maximum"25% bonus"allowed planned developments pursuant to section
17.50.030.
5
The plans for this project define density in terms of"persons per acre"with the
underlying assumption that each unit will be occupied by only one person. As stated above, the
Village has one and two bedroom units. Every building in the project can have multiple residents
in each unit. The Village West may also have two bedroom units.
Density compliance, using persons per acre rather than dwellings per acre, is
apparently based on Section 17.20.10 and 17.20020, relating to "group housing (such as
dormitory, rest home, boardinghouse or fraternity)which is occupied by six or more individuals"
This categorization raises several issues.
1. Section 17.20.020 requires `use permits for group housing shall stipulate a
maximum occupancy." A maximum occupancy has not been stated for this project.
2. Section 17.20.020 specifically states "residential care facilities"will not be
considered"group housing." If this project is a residential care facility, it does not seem to qualify
for this section.
3. This type of group housing requires"one parking space per 1.5 residents or
1.5 parking spaces per bedroom, whichever is greater." This type of categorization seems to
require more parking.
The data for properly determining density compliance is inadequate and, to some
extent, misleading. More accurate data is necessary to evaluate this project.
VII
17.62.040 CRITERIA SHOULD BE REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
Section 17.62.040(A) requires:
To approve a planned development, the Planning Commission and
Council must find that it meets one or more of the following
criteria:
1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular
occupancy group (such as elderly or families with children) which
would not be feasible under conventional zoning;
[with a 55 age limit, applicability is unclear]
2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of
greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less
sensitivity or hazard;
6 /-Yj
[not applicable]
3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with
conventional development;
[not demonstrated]
4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of
conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate
parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so
on) as well as or better than the standards themselves;
(completely inapplicable)
5. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy
or water than conventional development;
[applicability unclear]
6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits
such as parking, open space, landscaping, public art, and other
special amenities which would not be feasible under conventional
development standards."
[completely inapplicable]
Further, as stated in 17.50.030, Planned Developments may exceed densities
allowed by not more than 25%. This privilege is not automatic and may only be utilized if the
Planning Commission and the Council make certain findings as required by Section 17.62.040B.
17.62.040(B) states:
In order to grant a "density bonus" (as explained in Section
17.50.030), the commission and Council must find that the
proposed development satisfies at least three of the five criteria set 1
out in subsection A of this section. The application shall provide a
detailed statement indicating how the development satisfies the
appropriate criteria set out in subsection A of this section. The
maximum density bonus is not automatic. In determining the
allowable bonus, the Commission and Council shall assess the
extent to which these criteria are met.
VIII
ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION IS NECESSARY
If this project is approved, the affected residents must be provided with some
protection to limit the denigration of their neighborhood. Examples may include the following:
7
I. The 2 hour parking limit on Meinecke and Broad must be maintained and
possibly expanded to other streets.
2. It maybe necessary to require"permit parking only".
3. All affected residents should be granted an automatic fee waiver and counter
approval for a variance of Section 17.16.050 or, in the alternative, a blanket finding that"no
public purpose would be served by strict compliance with these standards." If our neighborhood'.
is subjected to more traffic and density, residents should at least have the option of protecting
their own privacy.
IX
PROJECT IMPACT DATA MUST BE PROVIDED
AS REQUIRED BY 17.62.010
Section 17.62.010 requires the project developer to provide specific information
concerning the project. The below listed information has not been provided.
Section A requires
A statement of the objectives to be achieved by the planned
development through the particular approach to be used by the -
applicant;
Section G requires:
Information on land area adjacent to the proposed development,
indicating important relationships between the proposal and
surrounding land uses, circulation systems, public facilities and
natural features;
Section H states:
Any additional information which may be required by the director
to evaluate the character and impact of the planned development
XI
CONCLUSION
We all dream of a pedestrian focused neighborhood where people of all ages share
a sense of community. The design of the proposed project is crucial: if done with imagination
and a clear sense of purpose, it will achieve common goals and make this neighborhood a
wonderful place for residents of all ages. If done without imagination, it will deprive the
neighborhood of open space, denigrate the"neighborhood" atmosphere, increase congestion and
destroy the hope of congeniality.
WILLIAM R. McLENNAN FeC'�.
ATTORNEY UW '
RAILROAD SQO UARE � ��
1880 SANTA BARBARA•SECOND FLOOR YO �'
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 ��ssy �99J
(805)5"-7950 l�iS
�n
r
Ms. Pamela Ricci February 11, 1996
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401
Re: Broad Street Project (The Village)
Dear Ms. Ricci:
I reviewed City Zoning Regulations (9/13/96) and now have additional issues and
questions for your consideration during your evaluation of this project.
PARKING
Section 17.16.060 (J) allows parking of space per dwelling unit "by persons
. aged 62 or older." I believe the age restriction for renting an apartment in the existing project
only requires one spouse to be 55 years of age. If this is correct, I do not believe the project
should be allowed parking reductions based on this section. Presumably,the normal parking
requirements should be applicable unless the above-noted age requirement is met by the project.
It is my understanding that the new building will have some type of eating facility.
If so, the square footage for this and any other"restaurant"in the complex should be added to the
parking requirement. Restaurants require one parking space for each 60 square foot of customer .
service area and one parking space for each 100 square foot of food preparation area.
As we discussed, I believe the neighborhood must continue to benefit from the ,
'Iwo hour"parking limit on Meinecke and Broad streets.
SITE LOCATION
Section 17.62.010 (Planned Development) lists certain information that must be supplied
to you by the developer. I would lice to make arrangements to review"Section G" information
that has been provided to you by the developer prior to the Planning Commission Hearing.
I am curious: why is this project located on a sensitive site when the Ramona
Street parking area could be developed with much less impact on the neighborhood? I would
appreciate some explanation, and also information relating to future development (if any)planned
for the entire location. I believe this information should be supplied by the developer pursuant to
17.62.010 H(ie "information which may be required by the director to evaluate the character and
impact of the planed development).
Finally,I would like a copy of the site plan sufficient to independently calculate the
square footage of the building and investigate the feasibility of a building located at the Ramona
street location. Please contact me so we can make whatever arrangements are necessary.
Thanks again for your help.
Sincerely,
William R. McLennan
�'07
WILLIAM R. McLENNAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW ECIEIVED
RAILROAD SQUARE
1880 SANTA BARBARA.SECOND FLOOR FEB 0 61991
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 -
(805)544-7950 N OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Ms. Pamela Ricci February 5, 1996
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401
Re: Broad Street Project (The Village)
Dear Ms. Ricci:
First, thank you again for your help today concerning the Broad Street Senior
Citizens project.
. As we discussed, I strongly support senior citizen projects in the neighborhood;
my concern is the size, scope and design of this specific project. Please keep me closely informed
of the appropriate hearing dates.
I have listed and summarized my initial, basic concerns:
PARKING
The project should be selfly contained and not negatively impact the neighborhood,
as the Blood Bank building did at the comer of Santa Rosa and Murray. All stat y residents and
guests must be able to park on the site and not impact the neighborhood. My rough calculation,
when considering this as a total R-4-PD project, including the projected 64 new units, indicates.
there must be at least 210 parking spaces. I am still concerned that the new building will have a
large staff that must be considered and accommodated in the plan.
DESIGN
The entire surrounding neighborhood is single-story residential housing. It is
crucial that this"look"does not be jeopardized by a huge office/hospital/hotel type structure.
Even the shopping center is a single story and the "Village"appears to be only a two-story
structure. The present design has been uniformly criticized by the neighbors to whom I have
spoken. It's just took big and too incongruous for the neighborhood.
SETBACK
"The Village"has a setback, a fence,multiple trees, and then a building. This type
of minimization would be less disruptive in the neighborhood. The larger the setback,the more
the building is masked with trees,the better. ( Can we save the existing palm trees?)
I will speak with you next week. Thanks again for your help.
Sincerely, _
i
William R. McLennan
RICHARD A. SCHMIDT, Architect
. P. 0. Box 112, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 544-4247
March 1, 1997 RECEIVED
To the Architectural Review Commission ;AR 0 31997
Regarding `The Village" Expansion/ March 3 ARC Agenda C SAN oc0JJ� ��
I have lived in the immediate neighborhood of The Village, on Broad Street, for 24 years, and thus
have a long-term commitment to maintaining our neighborhood's character. I apologize for not getting
these lengthy comments to you sooner, but I have not been "noticed" of this project, and learned but
lately of it from a neighbor.
Whereas in concept I support expansion of this senior community, I have major architectural and
planning concerns about the assisted living building proposed for the parking lot on Broad.
My concerns, detailed below, mostly boil down to one thing: The building is inappropriately large and
bulky for the proposed site. Much of this bulk is unnecessary, as my comments on interior layout below
make clear. Furthermore, in discussing comparisons between what is proposed and what already
exists elsewhere on the developer's property, it is imperative to remember that the new building's
dimensions, etc., cannot be compared to those of the existing Village for two reasons: 1, the Village is
set below street level, which mitigates its height, whereas the even taller proposed building will be set
at or above street level; and 2, the Village adjoins a shopping center, whereas the proposed building
adjoins a stable neighborhood of small mostly single story houses.
I request the ARC give the develo eD r two options: a major redesign of the building if it is to beIp aced
on the proposed site, or removal of the proposed building to the Ramona Street parking lot where most
. adjacency concerns will be non-existent.
My concerns:
1. Adverse impacts on Old Garden Creek.
I do not share staff'ssanguine belief that this project mitigates creek impacts and protects the riparian
corridor. There are a= of problems.
A. Setbacks.To protect creek corridors the city's Open Space Element and its creek setback
ordinance and Flood Management Policy all call for minimizing development impacts within and
adjacent to creeks. Old Garden Creek is one of the city's major creeks, and until recently it supported
a viable trout population at this site. Its riparian corridor still supports a variety of birds and wildlife, with
such charismatic megafauna as deer and a cougar being regular visitors within one block of this site.
Additionally, the portion of the creek adjacent to this project is among the most visually appealing and
beautiful sections of this creek. So, this is an important resource, and requires serious protection.
The project does not maintain minimum legally required setbacks between the building and
the creek corridor. There are two aspects to this problem:
1. Ido not believe the building in fact is set back 20 feet from the too of creek bank. The submitted
drawings are confusing, but they appear to show the following: existing asphalt parking lot that stops
several feet short of the property line, and several feet beyond the property line, top of bank. Actual
field conditions, however, place the top of bank in several places at the edge of the pavement (i.e.,
well within the subject property), and not where shown on the plans. By measuring from the drawings
instead from field conditions, staff incorrectly concludes there is a 20-foot building setback when in fact
there appears not to be.
The real location of the edge of this 38-foot tall building will be approximately at the rear bumper of
cars parked along the creek. Is this creek protection, or creek devastation?
2. The issue of top of bank, however, is irrelevant.The creek setback ordinance says development
- shall be set back_ minimum of 20 feet from too of bank or from the edge of riparian vegetation which
ever is greater. (Although Neil Havlik's letter acknowledges the 20-foot-from-vegetation requirement,
Schmidt to ARC,Page 1
for some reason planning staff repeatedly mentions only top-of-bank, and seems totally unaware of the
vegetation requirement.)The purpose of this provision is to protect the riparian corridor, not just a
trickle of water at its center; the corridor is what provides for wildlife and avian habitat, as well as for '
human visual pleasure. In the present case, you can observe from the plans that the proposed
building does not maintain a minimum 20-foot setback from the creek's riparian cover. In fact, at the
building corner near the present auto bridge, the plans clearly show that the building intrudes into this
riparian cover, and will not only require removal of some branches, but will -- in the case of the
predominantly young oaks along this section of creek-- preclude the native riparian trees from ever
reaching maturity.
Native oaks reach canopy diameters of 100 feet or more at maturity. A suitably protective setback
would provide opportunity for such spread. In the case of a low building, ultimate spread can be over
the roof, but in the case of a three-story building that is not an option.
Request:The project fails to meet the most basic creek protection intent of the ordinance. As one
of this ordinance's authors, I suggest that you can meet the intent of the ordinance in the following
manner: require a minimum average setback from edge f current riparian i n of 25-feet. This
will provide room for most present oaks to mature, and for others to be planted, while the averaging
feature is a compromise that keeps the requirement from becoming a canopy-edged strait-jacket.
B.The Bridge. City regulations prohibit construction of bridges unless there is"no feasible
alternative."
The covered/architectural bridge being proposed is a major intrusion into the riparian corridor. It
should not be permitted lightly. I call to your attention the relevant city policy (Flood Management
Policy: 1983 Waterway Management Guidelines, P. B-1):
"Construction of culverts, bridges or structures, in or over waterways, shall be prohibited
unless it can be demonstrated... that there is no feasible alternative to such construction..."
"Prohibited unless..." So, I would ask: On a property where there are already three bridges (pre-
dating the above policy), can it be shown that there is"no feasible alternative"to building yet another?
How many bridges are really needed on a single property?
Request: Looking at the property, I believe the plans for Village West could be changed to make
use of the existing footbridge, which already goes directly from the lobby door of the Village to Village
West. Admittedly, this will require some redesign of Village West, but why not? Such limited redesign •
seems reasonable.
Alternative Request: If the ARC permits a new bridge, I urge you to require removal of the two
existing footbridges as mitigation, together with restoration of habitat where they were as mitigation for
habitat lost to a new bridge. This 2 for 1 tradeoff may be viewed as a way to conform to existing city
policy that discourages bridges.
Both of the existing foot bridges are expendable.The present bridge from the Village to Village
West shouldn't be needed once the new one is in place. The bridge to the tennis court/parking lot is a
notorious flood hazard. It is a precast concrete "T" beam whose underside flange has many times
caused major flooding to our neighborhood by diverting flood water through the Village parking lot and
onto Broad Street. (It also shoots water into the lobby of the Village, and would probably direct water
right into the front door of the proposed Heritage building!) This flood hazard should be removed, and
making its removal mitigation for the new bridge provides a good opportunity to make this happen. As
for access to parking on the far side of the creek, the new bridge should be designed to accommodate
this access.
2. Noise Impacts on the Neighborhood.
A. Deflection of Traffic Noise towards houses across Broad and on Benton Way. The
building will present a 29-foot tall concrete wall towards Broad Street, set back only 15 feet from the
street right of way.This will reflect all the traffic noise from Broad towards homes across the way, thus
making them far noiser than at present.This should not be permitted to happen.
Request: If a building of significantly tall and large street facade is approved, it should be required
to be set back far enough (25-foot minimum) that a continuous grove of dense, tall trees can be
planted between it and the street, so that noise is absorbed rather than reflected. Suitable tall trees
would be things like redwoods -- dense and tall! Any ARC approval should include both the setback
and the trees as conditions. (j=: the arborist's recommendation that Quercus agrifolia coast live —
oak) be used as street trees would guarantee no noise mitigation for at least 25 years. We need trees
Schmidt to ARC,Page 2 C
that are tall and dense in a reasonable amount of time.)
B. Noise from air conditioning/ventilating equipment. It is unclear how this equipment will be
placed. I strenuously object to any placement (rooftop, for example) that will result in a source of roar
and hum being inserted into our single family residential neighborhood.
Request: If mechanical equipment is to be installed, the ARC should require that all of its sound be
contained within the site, and by condition prohibit any mechanical system sound generation that will
be audible to neighbors.
3. Overlook.This building will tower over the neighborhood. Is this sort of overlook from the building
onto other residential premises appropriate? Note that staff has pointed out the appropriate Land Use
Element Policy (2.12.12.A), "Residential projects should provide:A. Privacy, for occupants an
neiahbo of the project."This policy was intended to prohibit extensive overlook, and thus loss of
neighbors' privacy. I submit that an overly tall 3-story building so close to the R-1 boundary of the
property is inappropriate and a violation of this policy of the General Plan.
4. Parking.The parking allotted for this project by both developer and staff calculations is absurdly
inadequate. My extensive personal experience with this sort of facility tells me they are both staff and
visitor intensive, and to allot only 16 parking spaces is unconscionable. Furthermore, we all know from
experience that parking intensifies over time at this sort of facility as more and more services are
added. Granting approval while providing for unrealistically minimal parking is like letting the camel's
nose into the tent; once approved and all land is allocated for one use or another what does the city do
as problems develop? If inadequate on-site parking is provided, where will the excess cars park? In
our neighborhood. More parking needs to be provided on site.
Also, note that eliminating all parking except the reduced minimum the city requires for this sort of
project is very short-sighted on the part of both property owner and city. What happens when uses
again change (and you know they will in time) and parking requirements for the new use cannot be
met? You wanna hear that violin song?
5. Interior Layout Oddities Cause Exterior Bulk and Mass. Given my experience with similar
facilities, I find many things about the interior layout to be inefficient and less than optimal for residents
and staff alike. Normally this might not be an ARC issue, but I believe many of these inefficiencies and
oddities of layout contribute to the problems this building presents to neighbors.
A. Layout of resident rooms on the perimeter of a broad cross-section building. The
arrangement is inherently inefficient. It will also drive a need for greater staffing (and thus greater
parking and traffic) due to distance staff must cover and lack of direct oversight opportunities. It also
spreads the residents farther from each other as well as from required destinations, which presents
social and mobility problems for residents. It reduces resident security by preventing direct staff
surveillance and diluting staff physical presence. A superior alternative is double loaded residential
corridors; this provides greater sociability among residents, greater staffing efficient , smal)er travel
distancas, and greater securi may, among other internal benefits. Extsma!!y, douNs loal%l •^.Q.^_i'!Qr
design would reduce the street facade bulk of the building by reducing cross-sectional width.
B. Building "core" consisting of miscellaneous spaces. Not only does this detract from
resident living quality as noted above, it forces the building into a fat footprint and bulky facade --
unnecessarily. Much of the space encapsulated in the interior is poor quality essentially waste space —
like the "courtyard"which is sunk down two stories below the roof and thus will be a cold, shady and
uninviting (if not unusable) space in the winter-- precisely when the residents would most appreciate a
sunny sitting spot. (The site has good winter sun exposure!) Alternative: All of the functions
accommodated in the core could better be accommodated in a wing or podular arrangement.
This rearrangement would improve the building's footprint and neighborliness.
C. Central Dining. This is terribly impractical for assisted living. Remember that these people are
one step away from needing a nursing home: feeble, probably both mentally and physically
incapacitated. Picture, if you will, an 88-year-old chronically-confused grandmother who must get
around with a walker who lives at the far end of the third floor and must figure out how to negotiate an
elevator to get down to the dining room three times a day! It makes me shudder: how many falls, how
many walker tips caught in elevator door tracks, how many elevator doors closing and knocking her
Schmidt to ARC,Page 3 G
over, how many elevator exits at incorrect floors, how much confused wandering of strange corridors,
how many tears of frustration, how many dangers to personal safety and security? Or, will the
operators simply inhumanely evict such persons from their facility? Alternative: If the central dining
area wereeliminated and small dining areas installed on each floor, again, the bulky footprint
of the building could be reduced and its mass made more neighborly. Not to mention, better
serving the frail inhabitants and enabling them to maintain whatever semblance of"independence"
(i.e., freedom from nursing homes) they can for as long as �ossible.
By the way, why are kitchenettes includes in the rooms. People at this stage of life cannot safely
use cook stoves. Kitchenettes should be prohibited, for safety reasons, as well as to make better use
of limited space and cut costs.
D.This Bulky Cross Section Building Looks Like One In Which Air Conditioning Will Be
Required. Is it planned? Staff seems not to know. Why does this matter?
1. In a properly designed — i.e., narrow cross section — building, no air conditioning
should be needed. This site has clean sunny air and fresh breezes most of the year. Fresh air is
much more healthful than mechanically managed air. A sealed institutional building with air
conditioning will subject residents, many of whom will live almost exclusively indoors, to the toxic
substances that collect inside conventionally-designed buildings. The residents will have no
alternative but to be exposed to building toxins ("indoor air pollution") on a 24-hour basis, whereas
if the building is naturally ventilated, they will have 24-hour access to fresh air. It.would be a.shame .
for this building to unnecessarily become what we, in my end of the profession, call an energy
guzzling toxic pig.
2. Air handling equipment is noisy and may impact neighbors adversely. See "Noise"
above.
3. It is unconscionable to waste non-renewable energy air conditioning in our climate
instead of designing buildings properly. Our electricity comes from burning oil or natural gas
(Morro Bay power plant). We pollute our air when we do this. Globally, word is out this week that
the USA is doing less than any other industrialized nation to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases
(CO2 emissions from electricity generation and transportation are biggest contributors). This
situation exists because of a national lack of commitment and thousands of tiny unfocused
decisions like those that come before the ARC every meeting.
The city's policy commitment to energy conservation through using natural ventilation
rather than energy-intensive mechanical air handling is clear.The General Plan Energy Element
(Program 26) has the following directive to the ARC:
'The Architectural Review Commission will play an expanded role in encouraging energy-
efficient project design by requiring designers to make conscious choices and to justify
proposals... The goal of such review would be projects which make maximum use of solar
eMosure natural ventilation and passive means of reducing conventional energy demand as
imposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to mamta►n
comfort...
I submit that part of this project's ventilation problem is image driven: the image of happy family
dining in the congregate dining area to please family members, the exterior image of a huge, hotel-
like building offering shelter to the fragile. If the ARC holds this project to the globally-impportant
standard laid out in the Energy Element, it will provide the neighborhood side benefit of faelping to
force a redesign that reduces building bulk and increases project resident health, comfort and
welfare.
Request: Require redesign of interior spaces that have the effects of reducing exterior bulk and
size of the buildina while improvina the humane functioning of the interior and reduce energy
consumption.
In conclusion, it is clear that this huge building, sandwiched between a residential street, a creek, a
driveway and a parking lot is simply too large and too bulky for the proposed site. Please direct either
that its design be substantially altered, as specifically requested item-by-item above, or that the
developer turn his attention to the Ramona end of the property where the neighborhood incompatibility
issues raised here will largely cease to exist.
Thank you.
Richard Schmidt
)U4 Schmidt to ARC,Page 4
�- s3
JAN SCURI �.
64 BROAD STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405
543-6507
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Application No. ARC 158-96
61 Broad St. , San Luis Obispo
Imagine this, you are seated in the dining room or the
living room of the house you purchased 23 years ago . . .
whatever the view is from those windows, imagine a building
that is not one -- not two -- but THREE STORIES HIGH! ! This
building (is only set back 15 FEET from the existing
sidewalk) and takes up ONE HALF OF A CITY BLOCK.
CAN YOU IMAGINE A BUILDING LIKE THAT DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM
YOUR OWN HOME, WHEREEVER IT MAY BE???
My parents purchased their house in 1974 . One of the
reasons was the beautiful view of San Luis Mountain,
Bishop's Peak, the creek and all the trees, and the fact
that their were no houses directly in front. We have a nice.
residential neighborhood with beautiful views of the
mountains and oak trees, palm trees and others.
Smith & Company want to take the above listed assets from us
to "bring San Luis Obispo into the 90 's" . Mr. Smith states
that the project he is proposing would enhance our property
values, clean up the neighborhood by eliminating Cal Poly
students and homeless people who are a nuisance to his ,
property.
My reply is that our property will no longer be as valuable
(who wants to purchase a home facing an imposing three story
building that blocks all the views) . True, we may lose some
students, but we still have them as neighbors in homes
throughout the area, and as for the homeless, one or two
once in awhile, do not pose much of a threat.
I took a drive around San Luis Obispo today. I was looking
for THREE STORY BUILDINGS. I started downtown -- there are
very few TWO story, let alone THREE STORY BUILDINGS in the
heart of the business district. Laguna Lake Shopping Center
has no three story buildings. Central Coast Mall is all ONE
STORY, with the exception of part of the Mall and the
Embassy Suites Hotel AND THE MADONNA PLAZA IS ALSO ONE
I-N
2
STORY. All in all I did not find any THREE STORY BUILDINGS '
in front of a strictly residential area.
The proposal for 61 Broad is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to land
use in the rest of the town. The proposed building facing
Broad Street would be the size of the Social Services
building at the corner of Prado Road and Higuera Street.
All THREE STORY BUILDINGS are in commercial, industrial or
business districts.
I saw no other areasin the City of San Luis Obispo where
projects of this magnitude (THREE STORY BUILDING with 67
residents, if eventually two to a room would be 134 , 61
Broad with 67 residents, the Village with 125 residents, and
a full care nursing home) are located in an area such as
Broad Street.
There are other concerns such as inadequate parking for
staff, residents, delivery vehicles and visitors for over
259 apartments, not counting the proposed nursing home staff
with three round the clock shifts and visitors.
We feel that as long time residents of this area we have a
legitimate concern about this project and the precedent it
could set for a large THREE STORY BUILDING in our area, as
well as your own neighborhoods.
My mother is 79 years old and has been a resident of San '
Luis Obispo since 1926. She has seen many changes in the
town in that time, but she was not prepared for the news
that a major change would block her views. The enjoyment
she experiences every day as she looks out on the mountains
would be blocked by said THREE STORY BUILDING and its
occupants, who would in turn be looking down into her home.
The prospect of the noise, hammering, riveting etc. over a
fourteen month period as we watch our neighborhood slide
away is not a pleasant one.
We respectfully request that you consider these concerns
before granting a lot split for this area and approval of
the planned development.
kJSCURI
VELDA SCURI
March 6, 1997
City Planning Commission tee,
City Hall !A V E�
990 Palm Street R 61997
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 tioF
Dear Members: Re: ER 158-96 61 Broad Street 'le��+�Fo
After attending the meeting held by Mr. Smith on February 26,
I am not at all convinced that enough parking space has been
alloted for his planned Assisted Living Facility.
Hospitals and new commercial buildings are required to provide
ample parking and even new residences mint meet strict require-
ments. This is not a matter that should be left to chance!
With water rates at an all-time high, we who live on this
street are hard-pressed to keep up our property. If we under-
go urban decay caused by bumper-to-bumper parking on Broad
Street, we would have difficulty in selling.
Please consider consider the following in arriving at your
estimates for parking spaces:
Staff, including passenger van, groundskeeper, etc.
Residents
Health providers, visiting nurses, therapists, etc.
Visitors, including Caring Callers, clergy, etc.
Ambulance & fire truck
Prescription delivery
Mail delivery
Bookmobile?
With overflow parking from 61 Br?td, it would be impossible for
the tax-paid street sweeper (whop chedule is erratic) to operate
at all. Our yard care people would have no place to park, and
they dislike having their vehicles laden with expensive equip-
ment out of their field of vision.
There are many fast-moving vehicles coming north and south '
and from east and west (Serrano, Murray, Ramona, Meinecke,
The Village, and Foodhill Shopping Center) . Many barely pause
at the Stop signs. If the street were choked with cars,
backing out of our driveways would be hazardous. Even now,
we often need to wait several minutes.
Sincerely,
M. rn. a.P�-,�a�
cc: City Council Helen M. AleS.L.00r93405Broad
L.......................
LXiH
- Ie�els;Of Care ...........
...............
.......... .........
..... ....
Independent Living
Independent living is generally apartment living with minimum care services. For example, individuals
that reside in these facilities are completely ambulatory and generally take care of themselves.
However, such services as an emergency call system and 24 hour security are provided in the monthly
rental charge.
In addition to those services, other services such as transportation, activities and meals etc. are
optional at an additional cost per month.
Congregate LivingI
Congregate housing customarily is designed and programmed for an older senior who desires an
independent living unit with access to services that may maintain independence. Services typically
include meals,housekeeping,transportation and recreation. These services are generally included in
the base rent. This type of housing will most likely attract an older, possibly more frail population.
Assisted Living
Assisted living housing is designed and programmed for an older more frail resident who needs a
sheltered environment and assistance with one or more activities of daily living. Assisted living care
refers to the facilities that do not provide medical or nursing care but offer room, board and daily
assistance with dressing, eating, personal hygiene, health maintenance, supervision and monitoring
of medication, transportation and other aetivities.
This level of care is appropriate for persons who are unable to five by themselves because of personal
safety factors. These facilities are licensed by the State of California's Department of Social Services.
Nursing Home I
Nursing home facilities are designed to cater for the most frail of the population and the individuals
residing in these facilities can claim a rent rebate through their medical insurance. The people that
reside in these facilities are unable to function on an independent, individual bases any more and need
help with simple daily functions, such as eating, taking medication, bathing, going to the bath room
etc. These facilities offer room and board with 24 hour care.
��Ifilllf�lllllll�,�(I��Illlllll(((� City Of Sari Luis OBISPO DENSITY
CALCS WORKSHEET
Department of Community Development • 990 Palm Street/Box 8100 • San.Luis Obispo, CA 93403 • (805)549-7171
Project Name File Number
Project Address Jr" J (O �7YOdf7 Plans Dated
Calcs Prepared by Date Zone Parking Provided
PfR.50 NS
USE: AREA: RATE:
(at grodd
11 ill, b S
560 1-6jrm.(w. a0% dojbl n i„� c�y� Cot+ 45 Col
3 sfudios (s_r>� o c � 3
-7n
urs $road
� rJ' 1- rrn. (w•b0� doobleoccuTpan�cy) � + 2 (o2)
tovnit•Sf 2unl
52
I- bdrm. (w. X double oc.Gu (9.0 +42) - (0 2
.31 I - bdrm . Cw. 10� its
double09=- y� Clo1+� s)
&4
Ass isled Care Fn.c.;I l
64 un+s Coo
TOTALS:
COMMENTS:
i-90
1
XL t I I
.Of
I , 1 \
J Ji t
I r l I \�� \ � \�` � I I i � � I� � o !
I �I I \ @Q � II I I I /
cn.Lc.lm
o
IT,
o 20
a
0
4
Lo
%
to
:'Zo
QVJ
Ir
+ MEETING.
UPDATE
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Conference Room
City/County Library
995 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
March 3, 1997 Monday 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Commrs. Jim Aiken, Linda Day, Curtis Illingworth, Peggy
Mandeville, Laura Joines-Novotny, Ron Regier, and Chairperson
Woody Combrink
Commrs. Combrink and Joines Novobry were absent.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
No changes were made to the order of the agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
No member of the public addressed items not on the agenda.
PROJECT(S): ,
1. 61 Broad Street: ARC 158-96: Review of remodel and addition for senior housing;
R-4-PD zone; Smith& Company, applicant.
The Commission indicated their general support for the project concept, but continued
action on a 5-0-2 vote because of concerns that the new assisted care facility was too
massive and not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as presently designed
The ARC suggested that massing concerns might be addressed by lowering the height of
the building, setting the building back further from the street and stepping the height of
the building from the street to the rear. The Commission also discussed improvements
along the creek corridor, outdoor use areas and the need to coordinate the architecture
of the new building with other buildings on the site.
116 C
Architectural Review Commission Meeting
March 3, 1997
Page 2
Several neighbors of the project provided testimony. Most of the neighbors indicated
their support for the project in concept, but had issues with the scale and placement of
the new building on the site.
Adjourned at 6:35 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
scheduled for Monday, March 17, 1997 at 5:00 p.m., in the Conference Room of the
County/City Library, 995 Palm Street.
F
040
+ Petition �99�
r`OZ
We, the undersigned, declare our support for the proposed Assisted
Living Facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
California. It is our belief that the Facility will be beneficial to the
neighborhood by reducing traffic and noise. Additionally, it will create
more jobs for the community and provide much needed housing for
senior citizens.
55 Broad
.San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name Address 55 Broad City, State, ZIP
f3 San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Na !Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
Names --Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
Name I, Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
Name Adfress 55 Broad City, State, ZIP
San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name Address) 55 Broad City, State, ZIP
Ci a g San Luis Obispo.CA 9340§
Name Address 55 Broad City, State, ZIP
San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
Name Address 55 Broad City, State, ZIP
r San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
4,95q f3 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
Petition '
We, the undersigned, declare our support for the proposed Assisted
Living Facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
California. It is our belief that the Facility will be beneficial to the
neighborhood by reducing traffic and noise. Additionally, it will create
more jobs for the community and provide much needed housing for
senior citizens.
J (`� 55 Broad
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
^ 55 Broad
L�� 4 }� Cl 5✓ r San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
Name Address , J City, State, ZIP
i [ 55 Broad
3� GC7 :`ZLt2�
-"13
7 I San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
Name ✓ Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
UAP .6( mar San Luis Obispo CA 93405 '
Name �ddress City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
I �1/,� San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
NameV Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
n 55 Broad
a San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name G Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
110 39 San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Na e Addr ss I
55 Broad City, State, ZIP
—�
San Luis Obispo. CA 9340$
Name iAddress City, State, ZIP
J /I55 Broad
/a San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address 55 Broad City, State, ZIP
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name ,/ Address City, State, ZIP
l -/a3
Petition
We, the undersigned, declare our support for the proposed Assisted
Living Facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
California. It is our belief that the Facility will be beneficial to the
neighborhood by reducing traffic and noise. Additionally, it will create
more jobs for the community and provide much needed housing for
senior citizens. -
55 Broad f
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name Address '' City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
G
Name Address City, State, ZIP
` - 755 Broad
L�Lrc.'c._CL� San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Nxme Address City, State, ZIP
L 55 Broad
L
I San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
/ I55 Broad
Q� Q , ',� "l 1� �,�.�t/d Imp Lj San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Niame Address / . ..Ciiy, State, ZIP
55 Broad
f i San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name )(ddress
55 Broad City, State, ZIP
4LSan Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name 0' Address —; City, State, ZIP
�
55 Broad
C)C../ San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name \ 'Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
`YACZLP '�. CCr—
Name J Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
S 55 Broad
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Nam Address City, State, ZIP
�_ /oc
Petition
We, the undersigned, declare our support for the proposed Assisted
Living Facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
California. It is our belief that the Facility will be beneficial to the
neighborhood by reducing traffic and noise. Additionally, it will create
more jobs for the community and provide much needed housing for
senior citizens. ��---- -
}I 55 Broad
f7��� ��� � E San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
/�� � _
Name Address ; City., State, ZIP
I 55 Broad
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 i
Lt-
NameAddress """` - Y•'"amity, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name Address -- - --- -----City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
N e_ Address "' City, State, ZIP
,� 55 Broad
San Luis Obispo, CA 93ao5
o '
Name Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address . City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo, CA 93x05
Name Address . .City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address55 L) Broad City, State, ZIP
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
i� 55 Broad
i 1 1"�• �gL`q San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
G
Name Address City, State, ZIP
—/D—
Petition
We, the undersigned, declare our support for the proposed Assisted
Living Facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
California. It is our belief that the Facility will be beneficial to the
neighborhood by reducing traffic and noise. Additionally, it will create
more jobs for the community and provide much needed housing for
senior citizens.
55 Broad
_ San Luis Obispo. CA 93405
Name Address 55 Broad City, State, ZIP
n r1
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name Address�.� r City, State, ZIP
5 Obispo.
� JG///%yy��i/L.�i,�;�` �.. �; •' 3�j�y � San Luis Obispo. CA 93405
Name Address
SS Broad City, State, ZIP
tan Luis Obispo, CA 93405
. Name Addres1s� City, State, ZIP
yl55 Broad
San Luis Obispo. CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
f55 Broad
A San Luis Obison. CA 93405
Name / Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address 55 Broad City,State, ZIP
Sari Luis Obispo. CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
� It ss R-oad
,7 . '�1 �')', i:i ,,�.� i. � v San Luis^.hisnn. CA 2341)5
Name Address City,State, ZIP
r/ �� I 55 Broad
OS'7 S3nLuis O;isoo. CA ?3405
Narrie Address 55 6rrAd City, State, ZIP
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
_ ��."' Vitt-� TG`�,✓yP�v...�
Name Address City, State, ZIP
-/oG
i
Petition --
We, the undersigned, declare our support for the proposed Assisted
Living Facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
California. It is our belief that the Facility will be beneficial to the
neighborhood by reducing traffic and noise. Additionally, it will create
more jobs for the community and provide much needed housing for
senior citizens.
; I
j 55 Broad E
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 1
,
Name Address j _. '� City, State, ZIP
r— 55 Broad
-14 11 `1 San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
.... ....__....c........._...._-------_..._.. ..
Name Address , ' City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
Pame
a� San. uis Obispo,CA 93405,Address �• ad City, State, ZIP
^� I; sari Luis Obispo,CA 93405 ,
y 9 d�J •
:li✓tll7 tY✓1.�ILyJJ . .
Name Address ' City, State, ZIP
30<S' 55 Broad
San Luis Obispo. CA 93405
Name address 55 Broad City, State, ZIP
)3 $fin Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
(1� \ 55 Broad
fan Lus Obisoo. CA 93405
Name Address City, State; ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address . City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address� 55 Broad City, State, ZIP
� bl e J 1p 6L �M/�'`� (4,1 San Luis Ob soo. CA 9305
Name ,�//�� Address City, State, ZIP
J' -" / J(/( 55 Broad �
`V j1 - U San Luis Obispo.CA 93a
Name Address City, State, ZIP
/- lo;
Petition
We, the undersigned, declare our support for the proposed Assisted
Living Facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
California. It is our belief that the Facility will be beneficial to the
neighborhood by reducing traffic and noise. Additionally, it will create
more,jobs for the community and provide much needed housing for
senior citizens. --
; i
� 55 Broad
San Luis. . Ob.is. CA 93405 i
rvsC/� 1
San
Name ,._....___ _...... ,
Address ZIP
55 Broad
4+ 103 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 :
Name Address
55 Broad "::Citiy,�State, ZIP
�H5 San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name Address
10q .—City, State, ZIP
I 55 Broad
C San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name -Addiess City, State, ZIP
� LI 55 Broad
S u' 0 ispo 9305
7. �� 300?
Name �WVMIJL&ra�
Address City, State, ZIP
55 P_road
Cr San Leis Obispo. CA 93405.
Name Address55 Broad :City, State, ZIP
/��� 70 •I San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
2/i4� G J c 55 Broad
A' San ,.uis Obispo. CA 93405
Name Address 55 Broad City, State, Zip
Sammi Luis Obispo. CA 93405
Name Address 55 Broad City, State, ZIP
v
�Z f�
410:j::) l San Luis Obisoo, CA 93405
Name G� Address �-[
55
City, State, ZIP
—�
M BroadpSan Luis Obispo.. C CA 93.105
Name Address City, State, ZIP
Petition
We, the undersigned, declare our support for the proposed Assisted
Living Facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
California. It is our belief that the Facility will be beneficial to the
neighborhood by reducing traffic and noise. Additionally, it will create
more jobs for the community and provide much needed housing for
senior citizens. -=�-- --="--=
4 55 Broad
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 ,
Name Address55 Broad City, State, ZIP
i San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name ddress """ `"'+"-"`"` Cif State ZIP
�j d :' 55 Broad y,
c/. � ��� I " San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
?
=
Name Address City, State, ZIP
9
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address 55 Broad City, State, ZIP
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name• Address City, State, ZIP
Name Address City, State; ZIP
c 55 Broad
San Luis Obispo. CA 93405
Name U Address 55 Broad
City, State, ZIP
� San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
i
Nam Address 55 Broad City, State, ZIP
.� �
t,/ � z Szn Luis Obispo, CA 93d05
Name Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
%�� / I0,� Sen Luis Obisoo. CA 93405
Name /(—Address`/ City, State, ZIP.
_/pe
+ Petition
We, the undersigned, declare our support for the proposed Assisted
Living Facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
California. It is our belief that the Facility will be beneficial to the
neighborhood by reducing traffic and noise. Additionally, it will create
more jobs for the community and provide much needed housing for
senior citizens. --- - -- ;
�! 55 Broad
? , 'a ? San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Na�mee�) Address i - -- -- City, State, ZIP
��liz'L�NtNL� ; Broad
Ob i
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 '•
Name Address
City, State, ZIP
0 55 Broad
� �" lJ : San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
Name Address ...... '' City, State, ZIP
y� G( 55 Broad
�5 I San Luis Obispo. CA 93405
l•.L.vC��t
Name Address -- City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis OgiapZ CA 93405 1� t
Name Address ; 55 e o d' State, ZM
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 C
Z� Z -510 :
Name Address
55 Broad
&aSan Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name Address Ci , State; ZIP
55 road
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Name Address City;State,ZIP
i 55 Broad
San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
Name [/ Address / f� City, State;-ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
V .3 d 9
Name Address City, State, ZIP
n ss Broad
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
Petition '
We, the undersigned, declare our support for the proposed Assisted
Living Facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
California. It is our belief that the Facility will be beneficial to the
neighborhood by reducing traffic and noise. Additionally, it will create
more jobs for the community and provide much needed housing for _
senior citizens. `-' 7 .
55 Broad
/3 ! San nuibispo,CA 93405 !
tir
Name Address City, Sfate,ZIP
55 Broad
31 S Luis ISM 4
rd
e Address City, St te, ZIP
�artL 's'
Name Addressi State�Z
55 Brotys .)
San Luis Obispo..CA 93405
i
Name Add ss ;.- ,..`:,;; .-.:.-
City;`Stafe, ZIP
_ 55 Broad
�—
mac//� 93405
Name Addres =; t ity,State, ZIP
Ob Broad
' 'r GAn Luis Obispo 4 5 j� � 3 /
Name Address -.. . _.._: . . .-....:_. - - City, State, ZIP
&?r �/-4
Name Address City, Stat ; Z
Na� C Address City, State,.ZIP
'1 l�ttiti Z i 7?d u i- ko a4,L f24
Name Address �}23 , pCity, State, ZIP
Name Address City, State, ZIP
Name Address City, State, ZIP
+ Petition
We, the undersigned, declare our support for the proposed Assisted
Living Facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
California. It is our belief that the Facility will be beneficial to the
neighborhood by reducing traffic and noise. Additionally, it will create
more jobs for the community and provide much needed housing for
senior citizens.
Na e l Add ess ! ---_.____ -City ate ,
55 Broad
.San Luis Obispo..CA 93405
Name A ress State, ZlP
d�� ---- 55 Broad__:._.
I San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
Nam,S/') Address City, State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo. CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
1
0'0 . e� 5 Broad
5' � V� San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Name Address City, State, ZIP
r�an 0 55 Broad
t "rQP $;n Luis Obispo. CA 93405 (f
Name OAddress City, State, ZIP
55 Br
San Lu+:'�b,spn.c. CA 93405
Name `1Address 1 6 Pw City, State,ZIP
Name Address i City' State, ZIP
55 Broad
San Luis Obispo.CA 93405 '
Nafne Ad ss .-_. -` — City,'State, ZIP
55 Broad
7 / ' 'a � San Luis Obispo. CA 93405
Name Address -City, State, ZIP
-JA#nJ hr'
Name Address City, Sta e, ZIP
Petition `
We, the undersigned, declare our support for the proposed Assisted
Living Facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
California. It is our belief that the Facility will be beneficial to the
neighborhood by reducing traffic and noise. Additionally, it will create
more jobs for the community and provide much needed housing for
senior citizens.
55 Broad i
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
a
Name ddress � —__ _.:._...__.,. .._.__..City,`State, ZIP
Name Addresl City, State, ZIP
�c� �"tom ? 5s 6v S _ _ ...
Name Address 55 GI City, State, ZIP
` /) � road.
^j'J �J� L< <� San Luis Ob�spo, CA 93405
Name ! `��A )A�d,,dre/ss 1f. —•-••-•—.---- City, State, ZIP
�C���WK/ daYt/iA/!bm 10� 55 Broad
San Luis Obispo. CA 93405
Name Address — City, State, ZIP
City, State, ZIP
Name Address
Name Address City, State,ZIP
'IGiJt A.(,t)h j'l3 - �rn I y I hal • 3 J
Name Address City, State, ZIP
(oaf14G I i,AA5:!$
4m+eg Address City, State, ZIP
Ja,�y IVL 3364-1 CDG6I,)fVD D s �o e, 1 93W
Address City, State, ZIP
2�q 61
Mame Address City, State, ZIP
+ Petition
We, the undersigned, declare our support for the proposed Assisted
Living Facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
California. It is our belief that the Facility will be beneficial to the
neighborhood by reducing traffic and noise. Additionally, it will create
more jobs for the community and provide much needed housing for
senior citizens.
T1s'
Marne" Address City, State, ZIP
Name Addressty, State, ZIP
�QQ
e Address Cit , State, Zlp7��
5300 R6u(LA 4Q-) �f c�'sca��o CA g3gtT,
� Name Address&Zjzg�— 904U,�
LtXx
3 L1 ,,/ d�
Name Address City, State, ZIP r 7
G/ /Y �3bk�/90iAysZ.rnP sT. 5 L- ) 93fd /
Name Address. City, State, ZIP
Name Address City, Smte,-ZIP
N e Address J City, State, ZIP
& l ��—
ame ddress City, State,ZIP
- � �� �� QA�►f� S� eco}
Name Address City, State, ZIP
5
Name Address City, State, ZIP
Petition
We, the undersigned, declare our support for the proposed Assisted
Living Facility to be located at 61 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo,
California. It is our belief that the Facility will be beneficial to the
neighborhood by reducing traffic and noise. Additionally, it will create
more jobs for the community and provide much needed housing for
senior citizens.
i��s ra 84.0
Name Address City, State, ZIP
914
N9?�/C7S
Name
Address City, State, zip
Name Address City, State, ZIP
Name
Address City, State, ZIP
Name Address City, State, ZIP
Name Address City, State, ZIP
Name Address City, State,.ZIP
Name Address City, State, ZIP
Name Address City, State, ZIP
.Name Address City, State, ZIP
Name Address City, State, ZIP
RICHARD A. SCHMIDT, Architect
P. O. Box 112, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 544-4247
March 11 , 1997 C C
Re: Village Expansion, March 12 agenda
To the Planning Commission:
In its present form, this project ought not to be approved. The project is very poorly designed, .
and as a result is unnecessarily large and bulky. Some brief planning comments follow. Please
see my comments to the ARC for more detailed critique.
I urge you not to aporove this groiect as submitted It needs either a major redesign if it is to be
located at the developers proposed site. or to he moved to another location on the developers
property (Ramona Street) where its compatibility problems will loom less large
1. A building of the size proposed for the parking lot on Broad Street will be an intrusion into the
single family residential neighborhood that is intolerable, and, if allowed, will present concrete
evidence of the city's indifference towards protecting its established neighborhoods. Please
consider the following:
A. As you stand on Broad Street looking at the parking lot, realize that the building proposed
to cover the entire parking lot and be a mere 15 feet from the street would he about the
same height as the shorter of the tall palm trees in the parking lot! That is clearly a building
of inappropriate height, mass and size for this location, directly adjoining a stable single
family neighborhood. REMEMBER, THE ZONING CODE'S NUMBERS ARE MAXIMUMS,
NOT ENTITLEMENTS.
B. The building proposed is even taller than the too tall upper limit theoretically permitted by
city code. There is absolutely no excuse for a height exception.
C. This building violates numerous provisions of the General Plan, including many ih the
LUE "Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods" section, including
1. LUE 2.2.10. ".. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should be
compatible with ANY nearby,lower density development. A... New buildings should
respect existing buildings... in terms of size, spacing and variety. B... New buildings will
respect the privacy... of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where
multistory buildings... may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings."Clearly, this huge
building conforms to none of the above. It not only doesn't respect their size, will overpower
the small houses around it, while blocking views and deflecting traffic noise towards
established homes. (See ARC comments for discussion of traffic noise impacts.)
2. LUE 2.2.2. "Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, non
residential activities... Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by
Schmidt to Planning Commission, re Village,Page 1
detrimental commercial... activities."While staff apparently considers the project )p
"residential," I would suggest to you that the huge personal care institution proposed is in int,'
fact also a "commercial" activity which by its very size is incompatible with nearby
residential activities.
ans
3. LUE "2.2.12. Residential Project Objectives. Residential projects should provide: 9
A. Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project."This project creates massive Rd
overlook of the entire neighborhood.
"B. Adequate usable outdoor area... oriented to receive light and sunshine."There is no
outdoor area for the assisted living facility other than a "courtyard"that will be in the
shade all winter and much of spring and fall.
"C. Use of natural ventilation, sunlight and shade to make indoor... spaces comfortable e
with minimum mechanical support."A building with such a fat cross section cannot 3 as
provide natural ventilation. It will probably be air conditioned, which violates provisions of
the Energy Element as well as this section of the LUE.
"D. Pleasant views ... toward the project."Neighbors who now have views of San Luis as
Mountain and Bishop Peak will not find a 38-foot tall building facade to be "pleasant"by ,s
comparison.
"G. Adequate parking... space."The project as proposed is notoriously underparked. The
calculations presented both by the developer and staff are absurd. My experience with
this sort of facility indicates that parking demand is intense -- for staff and visitors -- and
increases overtime as service levels increase due to market competition for customers. Phe
Note also that much of the parking to be removed is currently being used by the Village.
Note the row of handicapped spaces, usually in use, the van spaces, as well as general do
parking within the lot fenced off from the Village which are used by Village occupants and
visitors. Finally, the city's parking regulations are absurdly optimistic: think about
Scolari's/Payless and Trader Joes, for two obvious examples, where parking
requirements are met but there's never enough parking. :r
"l. Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front f
yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways."This project violates all of the q
above. Again, my experience with this sort of facility suggests that a front porch facing i a
Broad would be popular with the inmates, and would provide them with an interesting way
to pass the day.
LUE "2.8.1. Large group housing ... such as retirement homes... should not be located in ,
low-densisty residential areas."Although the zoning on the.project parcel may be td
permissive, the corner of the parcel where this massive project is proposed to be located is
in a"low-density residential area." If the project is to be so massive, it should be along the
Ramona commercial corridor.
r
Housing Element 1.10.6 (goal) "Preserve the quality of existing neighborhoods..."Clearly,
project which overpowers a neighborhood does not preserve its quality.
ie site planning is in conflict with both the city's new creek setback ordinance (a law) and
=lood Management Policy directive on bridges (a regulation adopted by the Council).
Setback problems. I believe the top of bank shown on the site plan is incorrect in that it
Schmidt to Planning Commission,re Village,Page 2
��►n�Il �llll�llllllll����������lll«►IIIIIIII City. o sAl WIS OBISPO
• APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
fM/Vl/l1G C-AYYI�1lSS[ rendered on
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting.the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) .
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant: (14
� LC, r7 F 1 ccs( /Ago 5. 0c 7'1 6% Sc�3 fll
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for Date & Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s): �e
MAK $ W/
A. dO�sr�s' CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
Original in City Clerk's Office _ A?
WILLIAM R: McLENNAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
RAILROAD SQUARE
1880 SANTA BARBARA•SECOND FLOOR
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93401
(805)544-7950
Honorable Mayor and City Council March 18, 1997
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401
Re: 61 and 55 Broad Street Project (The Heritage at Garden Creek)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I would like to appeal the ruling of the Planning Commission concerning 55 and
61 Broad Streets (PD, ER 158-96). I have outlined below the reasons for this appeal.
1. The 25% density bonus was granted without following the appropriate procedures and
making the appropriate findings required by 17.62.040 (A) and (B)
This Heritage at Garden Creek is an"assisted living"complex for seniors more
than 62 years of age that will include 64 studio apartments and associated facilities (dining rooms,
therapy rooms, a beauty shop, office space etc.). The proposed building for this complex will be
three stories high with a minimal setback. It will be located in the present parking lot for 61%
Broad Street, a student apartment complex that will be converted to deluxe senior congregate
living (ie apartments and spa with dining facilities).
This proposed project will be located in an historic area of San Luis Obispo that
struggles for survival as a vital, family neighborhood. The potential impact of this large building
in this location could be monumental and irreversible, creating more traffic and parking problems
and,potentially, a neighborhood that is only occupied by students. These potential problems
illustrate the absolute need to carefully follow the procedures outlined in 17.62.040 before a
project of this density is approved by the Planning Commission.
1
The Heritage at'Garden Creek is located on 1.05 acres of land and requires a
"density bonus"to even marginally meet density requirements. The proper procedure for granting
this density bonus was not following in this case. Rather than using the clearly delineated
procedures that specifically regulate and control the granting of a density bonus in a planned
development, a totally inappropriate or, at best, sequentially inappropriate regulation was
utilized to secure the 25% density bonus and project approval. The effect of this action was to
avoid the procedural safeguards and protections normally provided to neighbors of a planned
development, and rapidly secure approval for a multi-impact project that may be too large for the
neighborhood.
First, it is crucial to remember the purpose of a planned development. As stated in
Section 17.50.010:
"The planned development zone is intended to "encourage imaginative.
development and effective use of sites. It does this by allowing more variation in project design
than normal standards would allow. Such variation from normal standards should provide
benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which could not be provided
under conventional regulations . . .
The Heritage at Garden Creek meets the criteria for a planned development
because it "provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as elderly
or families with children)which would not be feasible under conventional zoning . . . "
(17.62.040 (A)(1). However, a 25% density bonus for a planned development is not
automatic simply because it provides facilities for the elderly. No such intention is stated
anywhere in this section; as will be demonstrated,the opposite is true. To receive the density
bonus, a planned development must meet several criteria that protect and benefit the community.
The following procedures listed in 17.62.040(B) were not followed, but are requested
before the 25% density bonus is awarded to this project:
1. The Commission and Council must find that the proposed development satisfies
at least three of the five criteria set out in subsection A of this section (see addendum for s4ction
A criteria).
2. The applicant shall provide a detailed statement indicating how the
development satisfies the appropriate criteria set out in subsection A of this subsection.
3. In determining the allowable bonus, the commission and Council shall assess
the extent to which these criteria are met.
4. The maximum density bonus is not automatic.
In the present case,the above-listed regulations, normally utilized to determine the
applicability of a density bonus in a planned development, were ignored and instead section
2
17.90.020 (D) was inappropriately used to award a density bonus. This action clearly violated
the intent of planned development regulations and arrogantly marginalized neighborhood concerns
and fears about this project.
Section 17.90.020 (D) grants a density bonus of 25%to a residential project for
senior residents. This automatic result conflicts with the detailed procedures and protections
afforded neighborhoods and the community when a planned development is considered by the
Planning Commission. Simply because a planned development involves senior citizens, it is not
exempt from the procedures outlined for planned developments. If such a goal was intended, it
would have been stated in the regulations relating to planned developments.
The more specific planned development regulations for density bonuses must be
followed in this case. Unfortunately,they were ignored and the neighborhood and the community
may suffer from a project that has not been evaluated as required by appropriate planned
development zoning regulations.
This project must be referred back to the Planning Commission, the appropriate
reports must be filed by the applicant and the appropriate findings must be made by the Planning
Commission. To hold otherwise violates the procedural rights of the adjacent neighbors and the
intention of the zoning regulations.
2. The 25% density bonus granted for meeting Planned Development criteria cannot be
increased by an additional 25% pursuant to section 17.90.030 (D)
Section 17.50.30 A is specifically incorporated in section 17.62.040 (B), relating
to Planned Developments, and states, in pertinent part:
than 25%. Residential densities may exceed those allowed in the underlying zone by not more
To the extent that section 17.90.030 (D) seems to allow an additional bonus of
25% above the density bonus that can be awarded to planned developments, it is in conflict Mth
this more specific section and must be disregarded.
3. The Heritage is under parked
The Heritage is too large for the site and may not provide sufficient adjacent
parking to protect the neighborhood from intrusion by staff and visitor automobiles. A more
realistic methodology for calculating parking needs must be used for this project.
Once again,the Heritage is a 64-unit complex with a beauty.and barber shop,
therapy room, employee lounge, and complete dining facilities. Parking is provided primarily in
the Ramona/Palomar parking lot. The building has been allocated 16 parking spaces, based on a _
3
calculation of one space per four beds.
It is unclear and perhaps naive to assume that occupancy will forever be limited to
64 residents. In the future, and possibly under different management, two residents could easily
occupy each room without violating any occupancy limits (there is none). Both occupants and, of
more importance, staff will double. Where will they park?
Of note,the applicant states 14 employees and four guests will be on the site at
anyone time. First,these calculations seem Iow, and, even if accepted, indicate the facility is
under parked. Inexplicably, the applicant indicates they have provided 22 parking spaces for
The Heritage. (See Industry Norms for Parking provided by applicant. Of note,this data is
apparently based on an informal survey of undisclosed methodology;no daily labor work guides
or other industry publications have been provided for review).
If parking spaces adjacent to The Heritage are filled, the incentive will be to park
in the neighborhood, which is closer to the building, than in the parking lot on Ramona and
Palomar. Once again, this building may be too large and may not provide sufficient adjacent
parking to meet the needs of the future. As stated above, the project simply needs further study
consistent with applicable zoning regulations.
Sincerely,zi' f %�
William R. McLennan
4
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: CRITERIA FOR 25% BONUS
17.62.040(B) states:
In order to grant a "density bonus" (as explained in Section 17.50.030), the
commission and Council must find that the proposed development satisfies at
least three of the five criteria set out in subsection A of this section. The
application shall provide a detailed statement indicating how the
development satisfies the appropriate criteria set out in subsection A of
this section. The maximum density bonus is not automatic. In determining
the allowable bonus, the Commission and Council shall assess the extent to
which these criteria are met.
17.62.040 (A)
1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group
(such as elderly or families with children) which would not be feasible
under conventional zoning;
2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater
environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard;
3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with
conventional development;
4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional
standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate parldng, compatibility
with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or better than the
standards themselves;
5. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials,
energy or water than conventional development;
6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as
parldng, open space, landscaping, public art, and other special amenities
which would not be feasible under conventional development standards."
WILLIAM R. McLENNAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
RAILROADSOUARE
-SECO
'1880 SANTA BARBARA•SECOND FLOOR m
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
(805)544.7950 .1 "�iAj] 21 l i7I
--
'OF 1tmceSPO
Honorable Mayor and City Council March 20, 1997
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401
Re: 61 and 55 Broad Street Project (The Heritage at Garden Creek)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I would like to add an additional item to my appeal of the Planning Commission
ruling.concerning 55 and 61 Broad Streets (PD, ER 158-96).
In addition,I have included my objections to the applicant's request for the
creation of four lots from two lots at this site. I realize this issue will be heard on April 4, 1997,
by an administrative officer, but I anticipate approval of the lot split and believe all issues should
be heard at one time by the City Council.
Finally, I will be out of town and on vacation from April 17, 1997, until and
including May 3, 1997, and would appreciate a hearing date after May 3, 1997, which will also
allow the consolidation of all issues at one city council session.
4. The Heritage at Garden Creek creates an inappropriate density for the site.
The density for the Heritage at Garden Creek was erroneously calculated. If
calculated by dwelling, the density of this site is 33.6 dwellings (32 dwellings x 1.05 acres). This
exceeds density requirements, even with the density bonus(25.2 dwellings for the site withbut
the density bonus, 31.5 dwellings for the site with the density bonus).
The staff assumption that there will only be only 64 occupants for the life of this
building is completely unsupportable. Since no occupancy limits were set by the Planning
Commission, this facility could easily accommodate two persons per unit(128 people). This
yields a density figure of 121.9 occupants for the site, (128 occupants divided by 1.05 acres),
again completely exceeding density requirements(58 occupants for the site without the density
bonus, 72 occupants for the site with the density bonus).
Of note, and as previously stated, Section 17.50.3 0(A) is specifically incorporated
in section 17.62.040 (B),relating to Planned Developments, and states, in pertinent part, .
"Residential densities may exceed those allowed in the underlying zone by not more than 25%."
OBJECTIONS TO LOT SPLIT
4. The only purpose of a lot split placing The Heritage at Garden Creek on its own parcel
is to facilitate the separate sale of this over dense and under parked facility.
If the lot split is approved, a separate parcel will be created for The Heritage at
Garden Creek. Unfortunately,this facility could then be sold as a separate entity if the proposed
density and parking spaces are approved by the Council. The result would be an`independent"
64-unit residential facility with 128 potential occupants (two per room) and approximately 25-30
staff members(double the 14 estimated by the applicant if there are 64 occupants)on the site at
one time. Yet even with this level of potential occupancy and use, there are only 22 parking
spaces available on this proposed parcel and, more absurdly, only 16 parking spaces are
required for this building.
In the future, the staff and residents could be prevented from using the large
Palomar/Ramona parking lot. This scenario (a huge building, grossly under parked, separately
sold,with no access to the Palomar/Ramona lot) would be a parking and density disaster for the
neighborhood. Broad Street at this location will become the same uninhabitable eyesore, from the
perspective of a neighborhood populated by single families, as Casa Street near Sierra Vista J
Hospital.
The Heritage at Garden Creek must never be separated from the entire complex
and its Palomar/Ramona parking lot. The lot split must be denied, unless the building and its
parking needs are approved as an independent entity, and redesigned to accommodate a realistic
density and adequate parking on the site to meet the needs of all staff; visitors and occupants.
6. Conclusion
As previously stated, this project must be referred back to the Planning
Commission for the appropriate reports and findings. Subsequently, if a density bonus is
awarded, a realistic building design must be developed with an acceptable density and adequate
on- site parking.
Sincerely,
William R. McLennan
2 —
�"-LS.
�IIIIII III cit o sAn but oBisPo
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of v7
' J rendered on /
which consistb/d of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting.the.appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) •
,q
o� 199
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant:
Nam the Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) S,GD
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for 'l�S�g7 Date &Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the'following department(s): '
original in City Clerk's Offjc, / ZI
FLORENCE TARTAGLIA
70 N. Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
(805) 543-3076
March 20, 1997
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of San-Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: 61 and 55 Broad Street Project (The Heritage at Garden
Creek)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I would. like to appeal the ruling of the Planning Commission
concerning 55 and 61 Broad Streets (PD ER 158-96) .
1. The 25% density bonus was granted without following the
appropriate procedures and making the appropriate findings
required by 17.62.040 (A) and (B) .
2. A 25% desnity bonus for a planned development is not
automatic simply because it provides facilities for the elderly.
(See William McLennan' s letter page. 2, Items 1 through 4. )
3. The 25% density bonus granted for meeting Planned Development
criteria cannot be increased by an additional 25% pursuant to
Section 17.90.030 (D) . (Again, see William McLennan's letter,
page 3, Item 2.
4. The Heritage is under parked.
As proposed the Heritage is a 64-unit complex with a beauty and
barber shop, therapy room, employee lounge, laundry and complete
dining facilities. Parking is provided primarily in the ;
Ramona/Palomar lot. Sixteen parking spaces, based on
acalculation of one space per four beds has been ailoted.
It is naive to assume that occupant' will remain at 64 residents.
In the future, and most likely under different management, two
(2 ) residents could easily occupy each room without violating any
occupancy limits (there is none) . Both occupants and, of more
importance, staff will double. Where will they park???
5. The proposed Heritage building violates numerous provisions
of the General Plan, including many in the. LUE "Conservation and
Development of Residential Neighborhoods section, including:
LUE 2.2.10. "All multifamily development and large
group-living facilities should be compatible with ANY nearby
2
lower density development.• A- - 0New buildings s ouldand respect
e
existing buildings. . spe t in terms of size, spa g
g. . .New buildings will respect the privacy . . . of n.ei.ghboring
buildings and outdoor az -as, parti.culazly.where multistory
buildings . . . may overlook adjacent dwellings. CLEARLY, THIS
HUGE, ENORMOUS BUILDING CONFORMS TO NONE OF THE ABOVE-
The building as planned is too big and poorly planned for the
elderly adults destined to occupy it. Occupants on the second
and third floors who may be using walkers and canes
- havvery
e the
.long distances to walk to the dining room,
In a
building occupies whole lot, leaving little space for walking
es the
outside. or sitting on a porch to enjoy the outdoors. The
provision for the inside courtyard is dreary and depressing and
is a poor substitute for fresh air and being outdoors. .
IN CONCLUIONSO BE
NITOD AND
TO INSURES
THATTITSWILL JNEVER HREVERT OULD LBACK TOOSTUDENDATED
T HOUSING.
NG
As stated above, the project simply needs further study
consistent with applicable zoning regulations.
Sincerely,
F7,O TARTAGLIA
���eN�I��16�����IIII�I ty
oS MIS OBIS
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL '
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by.Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Wo Obispo Municip Code, the.undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
rendered on . lob lPf
which consisted of the following. (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submin .the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
'7 `
V '
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on, .
Name/Department (Date)
APPellant- �� -���1�I e .. � �S 1�• � ��5`6;
Namerritle Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for ��/� 7 Date &Time Received:
c: City Attomey
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s):
Original in City Clergy's Office
Amwam, II111Acityof l'1 tuisS� oBispO, ,-
�
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
'oF 1997
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by.Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of ,rpo
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
a
-t-1r�_ ala n ,n I n u COMM • rendered on !U{ C((`C-'1 I � N c1 -]
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting-the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
55 anck & I hf`06t4 %1- 4 rou&rO o-F Q rai•er,cP !'��n`�S
h•2 �K( S In,q lanh�� e� elo�m�h�, envr aro n m e E�
�2� P m l na'�Yt n A 10+ s p I +- �o l r\cl�u cel.�e" a 3
bu 114 I nod Ire
w (sh �0S �OIi`� 1n aIA sv���`f- Gc�l ( ( l�crrl (YIcL-�nyic� �rs .
aP{�•erzQ
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant: QS UIA,�, &y , 5LO, q 3q o5
a e/Title Mailing Address (& lip Code)
5zJ3 &5o 7-
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for Date & rime Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s):
OTvcLEA+c
Original in City Clerk's Office SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA — �3(
lie 4 o e&- 0J — Ran nI n ���rnrSSIC��
�lc5(orl an 5 q- 61 �rr'c�ar.� Mees PD, E2 rs�_gb .
1 r 1s fro eco Lcoukd enc.(1 acji 6 vi a '
u 2 (' olcQ en�et h o r hood i��(�Ct°�c�L� hQ c -F�nuc L ► L,r1
S�a I It 2 e oAxle4 ca f s U + 1.('Ce lG c S�S V
� no
QT�d, cpte -ecl �b o ray S (n a n& o u�- a vL &Q l o it)-e Ce
a T- lLLri ►s (10uo S`Ec����-ec,Q 's o a ho rs ct
S C�
pY\A%'o [((YL 0V2Jt1 olcj tYr ram (o
- ..- . S . . . ole _haw.e_ a d u CL �0 1 nc.c'-easec(
��sfoP
UT'Y\l ll QM ou r n-.9 bo rko6 ,�, 5a - cc
o CA �(ae¢ . J
DurMb(tvrhs (uootc.Q <S�a�� ac �c (o ca
cn
ito (�� n c-�oas-e c2 - -r6cKce, rom d��_(�u-e r UC�t LJ�6
L)ek les t`a'lc
Lv\� ...ya)oUG a cn ...
�eCorati2 Q �robl�em. nD�s�S � ('orn � 0-s Scup
Q l r �On i ani '
G'e�u
CO-LO, .b L Ld c r�
;'(1oLs�e O�r•c� ��ea�- ���c� be ���l�e c�cQ �ac1�.
, in`(b auo n-e�ahba�'�cx��4 .
?�ease_ ons Ld•e 0 o`F eo-ekct ct?e
QreA. Q boI IYI 11� - his ar�tn : (o�-
100 U( GQ 6 ov c- �ea u�l�u l U pe, .Us -P
'-BlSilofs 'Pev-►Z- . San �-uc.s (D") oun` aLvl 6-v> ce `��
Q f'eA 0 5U i ld l n sS S12`2 u l'C— 1161
bui 1� d��ec`f{ acros �M P S040- �►a,(
�A bCkl ri `-I le v LLO a c/t
1 . .ons . a�� � �eob( n1so a r D
b(M wcc lTi brKoo � .
.but.
`=UhS�cQ.�ef' `G-� ��s (11C�SScu�-2 �& rt� . aC11vsS
U
eC`e are- also so ch cons► d e (-Ao rc
off- Cbc1S�t'�c con a�n an x'611 aTon
�c�
tuo cS �`$a r
� n J
. bU � (c� c
U cmt l l(q7 `& e h I n ZTo`F )e
:CSS i a o
t, 0v -�ar a CDr\scd-eAo Pion,
- 0
- QJ12 0
9COq .,3 o po.&
c to s
(S05) 5q3- 650-7
WILLIAM R. MCLENNAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW 6\ ff
RAILROAD SQUARE `
1880 SANTA BARBARA•SECOND FLOOR C
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93401 �pR
(805)544-7950 cm.a 19y�
%to�Ri
Ms. Judith Lautner March 31, 1997
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401
Re: 55 and 61 Broad
Dear Ms.Lautner:
The developer for The Heritage at Garden Creek has asserted that 64 units are
essential for this development to be economically viable. I would appreciate an opportunity to
review the data they have submitted that supports this argument prior to the City Council meeting
of April 4, 1997. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to arrange a convenient time
and place.
In addition, I would appreciate clarification of the "health care" qualifications of
the developer. Are they simply developers who have hired consultants? Will the Heritage at
Garden Creek simply be sold after it is completed to a large health care company? As previously
noted, if this project is being developed for sale, the neighborhood should at least be aware of
that intention.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
William R. McLennan
w1►Ic, adverse
to satisfactorily percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in accordance
development with the adjustment factors on which the moderate income eligibility limits are based.
s paragraph, a (3) °Area median income° shall mean area median income as periodically
vided in written established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to
Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. The developer shall provide sufficient legal
ired in order to commitments to ensure continued availability of units for the lower income households in
hod to comply accordance with the provisions of this subdivision for 30 years.
ne households. (4) "Neighborhood" means a planning area commonly identified as such in a
mcentration of community's planning documents, and identified as a neighborhood by the individuals
)rtionately high residing and working within the neighborhood. Documentation demonstrating that the area
approving the meets the definition of neighborhood may include a map prepared for planning purposes
paragraph (1) which lists the name and boundaries of the neighborhood.
maffordable to (i) If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes
restrictions, including a reduction of allowable densities or the percentage of a lot which
agriculture or may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in
aeing used for force at the time the application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943, which
quate water or have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development
affordable to low-and moderate-income households,and the denial of the development or
s general plan the imposition of restrictions on the development is the subject of a court action which
existed on the challenges the denial, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to
ted a housing show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision d..
(j) When a proposed housing development project complies with the app lica e
I agency from general plan, zoning, and development policies in effect at the time that the housing
Chapter 2.6 development project's,application is determined to be complete, but the local agency
a Coastal Act proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be
ode). Neither developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the
naking one or proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial
irces Code or evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
Sion 13 (1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact
upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the
agency from condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a
it standards, 'specific, adverse impact' means a significant, unavoidable impact, as provided in written
ne quantified standards, policies, or conditions.
sing element (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse
s section be impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing
ins otherwise development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed
and facilities at a lower density.
[Amended, Chapter 896, Statutes of 19941
e Legislature
65589.6. Action to challenge validity of project approval/
disapproval
ssful manner In any action taken to challenge the validity of a decision by a city, county, or city
ental, social, and county to disapprove a project or approve a project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density pursuant to Section 65589.5, the city, county, or city and
s at least 20 county shall bear the burden of proof that its decision has conformed to all of the
as defined in conditions specified in Section 65589.5.
all be sold or
e income, as 65589.7. Priority water and sewer services to new housing
ted for lower (a) The housing element adopted by the legislative body and any amendments
iat does not made to that element shall be delivered to all public agencies or private entities that
)r household provide water services at retail or sewer services within the territory of the legislative
-me eligibility body. When allocating or making plans for the allocation of available and future resources
,rate income or services designated for residential use, each public agency or private entity providing
:rcent of 100 water services at retail or sewer services, shall grant a priority for the provision of these
available and future resources or services to proposed housing developments which help
meet the city's,county's,or city and county's share of the regional housing need for lower
-- ---------- 79 cV ,1 code
Lo558`� •�(J '
MEETING AGENDA
DATE pT ITE",i #
FLORENCE TARTAGLIA
70 N. Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
(B05) 543-3076
I!7 COUNCIL
AO ❑ FIN DiR
ACAO ❑ FIRE uHIEF p
April 10, 1997 }a'ATTORNEY ❑ PWD:
z'CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REG DOR
❑ S.READ FILE ❑ UT1L"u!R
Honorable Mayor and City Council ❑ PER
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: 61 and 55 Broad Street Project (The Heritage at Garden
Creek) Hearing scheduled for April 15, 1997 .
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Please find attached, additional information for your review in
support of my concerns regarding the parking to be allowed for
the proposed senior adult housing, The Heritage at Garden Creek.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
FLARE E TARTAGLIA
FIECE VL7i
..CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS 0BIS?0.C:;
VENCOR WOODSIDE NURSING HOME
65 rooms
Maximum capacity - 160
2 bed rooms - $101 per day = $3,030.00 per mo.
3 bed rooms - $97 per day = $2910 per mo.
PARKING LOT - 51 or 52 parking spaces (See pictures taken
in the morning and afternoon. All filled.
Also see street parking.
------------------------------------------------------
CABRILLO
67 rooms
Maximum capacity - 160 people
3 bed rooms - $2700 per mo.
2 bed rooms - $2850 per mo.
Private rooms $165 per day = $4950 per mo.
PARKING LOT - 35 spaces (See pictures of lot and street.
--------------------------------------------------
In discussions with office personnel at these facilities I
was informed that Sunday visiting really filled the streets
and lots. When I told them of the numbers for the Heritage,
they said that was much too inadequate and shook their heads
in disbelief.
The proposal for the Heritage provides for only 22 spaces
for visitors and staff. For 64 rooms with a maximum
capacity of 128 persons or more, this is a very inadequate
provision.
If this unit is sold in the future as a separate parcel from
the Village and Village West, this leaves the Heritage with
totally inadequate parking provisions. Thus, if the
lot split is approved, we are requesting that STRICT
PROVISIONS BE RECORDED so that the campus as a whole be kept
to senior adult living with adequate parking provisions for
each unit.
.. _. `�• �.:_.� � ice.,r +.n f�1 �:rl
gy
N
r
L�
• � 1
ti
t, 2y
r
IT
IT,
r �
FFA� Y �'j ` R 41✓
Aw-
(
r . _d
r, Tt
�:
.. � r
-41,i}
r
i
A , r•� 1 .-
.., �.•J�e aL h a .
-
r
F(cr YI'.` `J,.F `e�••^f���'f ���qi Fr ..riw i>F �-�,1, -
flEpt
WT,
ii:'LL..�,q•k S I•l Jr�rJ�373t�+1�{"aF'.t��y�r � trf,54 S 7...1 5, -
4'�:4w7'V".n.51�y✓rgF,+,4� ��Sr�YZ-r � of Il til - w 9 -
,t•-y'}
�syuS��l'��J�k'.''l tF:/Y_.r`^G.dy��.N.t �..'7'�ii<.{,} 4..f1•C�, ...til,._.'.
1. ,c•
•
�'r: ,i .h'! u•+� u ��....:'�^i. S��'7��^ d C�,rSJ 3e t�q,2�'a'L.•'�! , .1 � 6 "t,,r. v. �
-,vF�..�'�� t-'1�v h.r F yA`�•N 14_,y .{,[d lY�C"�i �^�':,ro 7F.a"'Lc'r'�' J..'r a
.�5��i`a^^?�aiSrl.c"V`�+� �r .�f iii x��'•y'�v '�i •'�{ 5 y � ,11�,�'1y,-, 4S t�7,� �` '1 ��fVf}}t1 �� r{•Y r�.lr s t 5�+1 n ,
� i 4.��j��` rvrr�.o��'( f 7�f�yTYa_ '���` �� ��i �.� ?, •y.,��,�-t 1 f k,r
YEA. ! y �, ` 4♦`�.�j ! 1 l .
::l:i-. ,Yu3:� .�•c.'{"-3 i_ V q `r.=^
n� 15*� N 2�.�7T��r4R St���'`Src X15 •7'Av y T Y.d ;: - -
.,y v�.�Y\ k"�-`r,1` ,Y` f. �•'��t �•'t:.:S � �f �-J.� �•T�Vai� .. .\
I
w
k
1®t l
iF"S• �
•J
S3�`,S- `�; I /(jlf(•.$� T Yui/ 1L.�_ M`'� J'.i.�
K h YL T.•Y{(Ip' I'L 1. RJF A�1 kx. J``*T�� ^ry_t..'w 1 f { `�F'cYa.�'f.
.^'. N 1 r t ", [ •.T, Y Y'{. 1 � Q il) r1 }1�i(`V� x'4M {.
s
Y
7+:A►`. y
e
v r 7rkx! '•ofa�� � ;" ...� a y-.rx� a it '"I^'+tt1!?7"''�x �' {
� �i�fB��'+"��"��Y•Sc .yii�'�F� 't „ .,, r lif ra . ,�v �� Y
.. ..��. J`.: ." .. ..., .d,*Io:arbJ_,�'a,5'��t;S'i .+,� 7St• �1 o,.�4', vt �.. C �,f
1J � S �
_ IAS G.;4
MEETING AGENDA
IP,�OoUNCIL zrcriaum `i DATE ITEM #
RICHARD SCHMIDT d Ao ❑ FIN DIR
�WWad SRM,�HF is Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR e-mail:rschmidt@calpoly.edu
❑ C READ FPLC ❑ UP.L DIR
April 13, 1997 ❑ PErls DIR
To the City Council
Re: Village Appeal
I wish to support my neighbors' appeal of the Village expansion project. I URGE YOU TO UPHOLD
THEIR APPEAL.
While nobody objects to the Village's expansion into the existing Islander apartments nor to
reasonable expansion elsewhere on the site, the proposed expansion is far too much, in far too large
a container, in an inappropriate location, with far too great impacts on neighbors and future users of
the facility, to be countenanced.
I also suspect the size and configuration of the proposed assisted living facility are not viable,
economically or operationally. You would do the applicant's poor judgment a favor by forcing him to
scale back the project to one that will work and be a success.
Please note that the appellants are not people you see a lot of at City Hall, nor are they people
familiar with workings of the convoluted "process" by which public business is conducted today in San
Luis Obispo.They are simply citizens concerned about the impact of this project.on the livability of
their neighborhood. You should note this because they, in my judgment, are typical of THOUSANDS
of citizens who feel the city is destroying its neighborhoods by allowing the forces of neglect and
greed to overrun them, and are getting very fed up. That, clearly, has political implications.
I am resubmitting my previous correspondence to the ARC and Planning Commission, which
enumerates the many problems I see with this project. Rather than repeat, I'll confine my comments
here to a few highlights and elaborations.
1. The interior arrangement of the assisted living facility is poorly designed, and in my professional
judgment, dysfunctional both operationally and socially.
•As an architectural programmer, I can testify to the poor operational potential of the layout. This
will result in either substandard care or in the need for increased basic staffing levels. It will also
result in poor social functioning for the project's residents.
2. The exterior size of the building is inappropriate for a site adjoining single family residences that are
one story and about 1,000 to 1,500 square feet in size.
•The proposed 35-foot height is inappropriate.
• The setback from the street is inappropriate.
• The large, blocky institutional form is inappropriate.
• Many cities now realize that more important than zoning is the type of container in which uses
are housed. If the container is inappropriate for a given location, it must be redesigned. In this
case, the container must be made to blend with small single family houses if the project is to be
sited next to single family houses. When the container is appropriate, what goes on inside it
becomes of secondary importance.
•The size and bulk of the container for the assisted living facility is being driven by thR> E1VEJ:)
1. Poor interior function.
2. Poor design. APR .I 111"/.
3. A desire for too large a facility.
3. Height comparisons between the proposed building and the Village are deceptive. cmr coUNci
•The part of the Village that is.alleged to be 35 feet high is SAN 1. ^"� Bq
1. set well below street level so that it appears to be a two-story building (whereas the base
level of the assisted living building will be slightly above street level and all three stories will be
fully exposed), and
2. adjoins a commercial district rather than single family homes.
4. The assisted living facility is too large. In placing my mother in an assisted living facility, I shopped
good facilities in two maior cities (500,000 to 1 million population).
• None of the facilities I looked at had 64 units -- most were much smaller, yet were still considered
JaW facilities.
• I question whether a 64-unit facility makes any sense in a community the size of San.Luis Obispo
when operators of good facilities in major cities have found smaller facilities make more sense
there.
•The Village proposal, with the dysfunctional layout and proposed staffing levels and physical
size,will be little more than a warehouse for the frail elderly. That is not in the target population's
best interests.
5. On-site parking is being low-balled. My comments on this in the other letters are quite specific.
• I find it disconcerting when staff admits they have no idea how to calculate parking for this sort of
project, and thus take the developer's word for how much is needed.
• I suggested staff do some independent research, starting with contacting other cities with similar
facilities, to check on parking needs and city requirements;to my knowledge, this was never done.
6. There are many General Plan inconsistencies.This is dealt with in my Planning Commission letter.
7. The subdivision of the Village into separate parcels, some with inadequate parking, poses major
future problems. Once subdivided, each parcel can be sold individually. What will the city do about
one with inadequate parking and ownership separate from the designated parking? Surely its
operations cannot be shut down.
8. The developer has a reputation for erecting oversized, ugly, dysfunctional, unmarketable projects
that show no consideration for neighbors.
•The last time he blessed our neighborhood with one -- a huge box of a"house" above Broad
Street -- it not only upset thousands of people who have to look at it, it sat unsold for years,
despite an intensive out-of-town marketing campaign (for instance, regular ads in the LA Times).
•This huge house caused such a commotion that as a result the ARC regulations were rewritten
to include single family situations that had never before been regulated.
• Please save us from having yet another of his monster buildings in our neighborhood.
Thank you.
Richard Schmidt
RICHARD A. SCHMIDT, Architect
P. O. Box 112, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 544-4247
March 1, 1997
To the Architectural Review Commission
Regarding 'The Village" Expansion/ March 3 ARC Agenda
I have lived in the immediate neighborhood of The Village, on Broad Street, for 24 years, and thus
have a long-term commitment to maintaining our neighborhood's character. I apologize for not getting
these lengthy comments to you sooner, but I have not been "noticed"of this project, and learned but
lately of it from a neighbor.
Whereas in concept I support expansion of this senior community, I have major architectural and
planning concerns about the assisted living building proposed for the parking lot on Broad.
My concerns, detailed below, mostly boil down to one thing: The building is inappropriately large and
bulky for the proposed site. Much of this bulk is unnecessary, as my comments on interior layout below
make clear. Furthermore, in discussing comparisons between what is proposed and what already
exists elsewhere on the developer's property, it is imperative to remember that the new building's
dimensions, etc., cannot be compared to those of the existing Village for two reasons: 1, the Village is
set below street level, which mitigates its height, whereas the even taller proposed building will be set
at or above street level; and 2, the Village adjoins a shopping center, whereas the proposed building
adjoins a stable neighborhood of small mostly single story houses.
I request the ARC give the developer two options: a maior redesign of the building if it is to beIp aced
on the proposed site. or removal of the proposed building to the Ramona Street parking lot where most
adiacency concerns will be non-existent.
My concerns:
1. Adverse impacts on Old Garden Creek.
I do not share staff's sanguine belief that this project mitigates creek impacts and protects the riparian
corridor.There are a number of problems.
A. Setbacks. To protect creek corridors the city's Open Space Element and its creek setback
ordinance and Flood Management Policy all call for minimizing development impacts within and
adjacent to creeks. Old Garden Creek is one of the city's major creeks, and until recently it supported
a viable trout population at this site. Its riparian corridor still supports a variety of birds and wildlife, with
such charismatic megafauna as deer and a cougar being regular visitors within one block of this site.
Additionally, the portion of the creek adjacent to this project is among the most visually appealing and
beautiful sections of this creek. So, this is an important resource, and requires serious protection.
The project does not maintain minimum legally required setbacks between the building and
the creek corridor. There are two aspects to this problem:
1. 1 do not believe the building in fact is set back 20 feet from the top of creek bank.The submitted
drawings are confusing, but they appear to show the following: existing asphalt parking lot that stops
several feet short of the property line, and several feet beyond the property line, top of bank. Actual
field conditions, however, place the top of bank in several places at the edge of the pavement (i.e.,
well within the subject property), and not where shown on the plans. By measuring from the drawings
instead from field conditions, staff incorrectly concludes there is a 20-foot building setback when in fact
there appears not to be.
The real location of the edge of this 38-foot tall building will be approximately at the rear bumper of
cars parked along the creek. Is this creek protection, or creek devastation?
2. The issue of top of bank, however, is irrelevant. The creek setback ordinance says development
shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from top of bank or from the edge of riparian vegetation. which
ever is greater. (Although Neil Havlik's letter acknowledges the 20-foot-from-vegetation requirement,
Schmidt to ARC,Page 1
;.
for some reason planning staff repeatedly mentions only top-of-bank, and seems totally unaware of the
vegetation requirement.)The purpose of this provision is to protect the riparian corridor, not just a
trickle of water at its center; the corridor is what provides for wildlife and avian habitat, as well as for
human visual pleasure. In the present case, you can observe from the plans that the proposed
building does not maintain a minimum 20-foot setback from the creek's riparian cover. In fact, at the
building corner near the present auto bridge, the plans clearly show that the building intrudes into this
riparian cover, and will not only require temoval of some branches, but will -- in the case of the
predominantly young oaks along this section of creek-- preclude the native riparian trees from ever
reaching maturity.
Native oaks reach canopy diameters of 100 feet or more at maturity. A suitably protective setback
would provide opportunity for such spread. In the case of a low building, ultimate spread can be over
the roof, but in the case of a three-story building that is not an option.
Request:The project fails to meet the most basic creek Drotection intent of the ordinance. As one
of this ordinance's authors, I suggest that you can meet the intent of the ordinance in the following
manner:.reguire a minimum average setback from edae of current riparian vegetation of 25-feet. This
will provide room for most present oaks to mature, and for others to be planted, while the averaging
feature is a compromise that keeps the requirement from becoming a canopy-edged strait-jacket.
B. The Bridge. City regulations prohibit construction of bridges unless there is "no feasible
alternative."
The covered/architectural bridge being proposed is a major intrusion into the riparian corridor. It
should not be permitted lightly. I call to your attention the relevant city policy (Flood Management
Policy: 1983 Waterway Management Guidelines, P. B-1):
"Construction of culverts, bridges or structures, in or over waterways, shall be prohibited
unless it can be demonstrated... that there is no feasible alternative to such construction..."
"Prohibited unless..." So, I would ask: On a property where there are already three bridges (pre-
dating the above policy), can it be shown that there is "no feasible alternative"to building yet another?
How many bridges are really needed on a single property?
Request: Looking at the property, I believe the plans for Village West could be changed to make
use of the existing footbridge, which already goes directly from the lobby door of the Village to Village
West. Admittedly, this will require some redesign of Village West, but why not? Such.limited redesign
seems reasonable.
Alternative Request: If the ARC permits a new bridge, I urge you to require removal of the two
existing footbridges as mitigation, together with restoration of habitat where they were as mitigation for
habitat lost to a new bridge. This 2 for 1 tradeoff may be viewed as a way to conform to existing city
policy that discourages bridges.
Both of the existing foot bridges are expendable. The present bridge from the Village to Village
West shouldn't be needed once the new one is in place. The bridge to the tennis court/parking lot is a
notorious flood hazard. It is a precast concrete 'T" beam whose underside flange has many times
caused major flooding to our neighborhood by diverting flood water through the Village parking lot and
onto Broad Street. (It also shoots water into the lobby of the Village, and would probably direct water
right into the front door of the proposed Heritage building!) This flood hazard should be removed, and
making its removal mitigation for the new bridge provides a good opportunity to make this happen. As
for access to parking on the far side of the creek, the new bridge should be designed to accommodate
this access.
2. Noise Impacts on the Neighborhood.
A. Deflection of Traffic Noise towards houses across Broad and on Benton Way.The
building will present a 29-foot tall concrete wall towards Broad Street, set back only 15 feet from the
street right of way. This will reflect all the traffic noise from Broad towards homes across the way, thus
making them far noiser than at present. This should not be permitted to happen.
Request: If a building of significantly tall and large street facade is approved, it should be required
to be set back far enough (25-foot minimum) that a continuous grove of dense, tall trees can be
planted between it and the street, so that noise is absorbed rather than reflected. Suitable tall trees
would be things like redwoods -- dense and tall! Any ARC approval should include both the setback
and the trees as conditions. (NQte: the arborist's recommendation that Quercus agrifolia(coast live
oak) be used as street trees would guarantee no noise mitigation for at least 25 years. We need trees
Schmidt to ARC, Page 2
that are tall and dense in a reasonable amount of time.)
B. Noise from air conditioning/ventilating equipment. It is unclear how this equipment will be
placed. I strenuously object to any placement (rooftop, for example) that will result in a source of roar
and hum being inserted into our single family residential neighborhood.
Request: If mechanical equipment is to be installed, the ARC should require that all of its sound be
contained within the site, and by condition prohibit any mechanical system sound generation that will
be audible to neighbors.
3. Overlook. This building will tower over the neighborhood. Is this sort of overlook from the building
onto other residential premises appropriate? Note that staff has pointed out the appropriate Land Use
Element Policy (2.12.12.A), "Residential projects should provide:A. Privacy, for occupants an
neiahbors of the project."This policy was intended to prohibit extensive overlook, and thus loss of
neighbors' privacy. I submit that an overly tall 3-story building so close to the R-1 boundary of the
property is inappropriate and a violation of this policy of the General Plan.
4. Parking. The parking allotted for this project by both developer and staff calculations is absurdly
inadequate. My extensive personal experience with this sort of facility tells me they are both staff and
visitor intensive, and to allot only 16 parking spaces is unconscionable. Furthermore, we all know from
experience that parking intensifies over time at this sort of facility as more and more services are
added. Granting approval while providing for unrealistically minimal parking is like letting the camel's
nose into the tent; once approved and all land is allocated for one use or another what does the city do
as problems develop? If inadequate on-site parking is provided, where will the excess cars park? In
our neighborhood. More parking needs to be provided on site.
Also, note that eliminating all parking except the reduced minimum the city requires for this sort of
project is very short-sighted on the part of both property owner and city. What happens when uses
again change (and you know they will in time) and parking requirements for the new use cannot be
met? You wanna hear that violin song?
5. Interior Layout Oddities Cause Exterior Bulk and Mass. Given my experience with similar
facilities, I find many things about the interior layout to be inefficient and less than optimal for residents
and staff alike. Normally this might not be an ARC issue, but I believe many of these inefficiencies and
oddities of layout contribute to the problems this building presents to neighbors.
A. Layout of resident rooms on the perimeter of a broad cross-section building. The
arrangement is inherently inefficient.. It will also drive a need for greater staffing (and thus greater
parking and traffic) due to distance staff must cover and lack of direct oversight opportunities. It also
spreads the residents farther from each other as well as from required destinations, which presents
social and mobility problems for residents. It reduces resident security by preventing direct staff
surveillance and diluting staff physical presence. A superior alternative is double loaded residential
corridors; this provides greater sociability among residents, greater staffing efficiency, smaller travel
distances, and greater security, among other internal benefits. Externally, double loaded corridor
design would reduce the street facade bulk of the building.by reducing cross-sectional width.
B. Building "core" consisting of miscellaneous spaces. Not only does this detract from
resident living quality as noted above, it forces the building into a fat footprint and bulky facade --
unnecessarily. Much of the space encapsulated in the interior is poor quality essentially waste space --
like the "courtyard"which is sunk down two stories below the roof and thus will be a cold, shady and
uninviting (if not unusable) space in the winter-- precisely when the residents would most appreciate a
sunny sitting spot. (The site has good winter sun exposure!) Alternative: All of the functions
accommodated in the core could better be accommodated in a wing or podular arrangement.
This rearrangement would improve the building's footprint and neighborliness.
C. Central Dining. This is terribly impractical for assisted living. Remember that these people are
one step away from needing a nursing home: feeble, probably both mentally and physically
incapacitated. Picture, if you will, an 88-year-old chronically-confused grandmother who must get
around with a walker who lives at the far end of the third floor and must figure out how to negotiate an
elevator to get down to the dining room three times a day! It makes me shudder: how many falls, how
many walker tips caught in elevator door tracks, how many elevator doors closing and knocking her
Schmidt to ARC, Page 3
over, how many elevator exits at incorrect floors, how much confused wandering of strange corridors,
how many tears of frustration, how many dangers to personal safety and security? Or, will the
operators simply inhumanely evict such persons from their facility? Alternative: If the central dining
area were eliminated and small dining areas installed on each floor, again, the bulky footprint
of the building could be reduced and its mass made more neighborly. Not to mention, better
serving the frail inhabitants and enabling them to maintain whatever semblance of "independence"
(i.e., freedom from nursing, homes) they can for as long as possible.
By the way, why are kitchenettes includes in the rooms? People at this stage of life cannot safely
use cook stoves. Kitchenettes should be prohibited, for safety reasons, as well as to make better use
of limited space and cut costs.
D. This Bulky Cross Section Building Looks Like One In Which Air Conditioning Will Be
Required. Is it planned? Staff seems not to know. Why does this matter?
1. In a properly designed— i.e., narrow cross section — building, no air conditioning
should be needed. This site has clean sunny air and fresh breezes most of the year. Fresh air is
much more healthful than mechanically managed air. A sealed institutional building with air
conditioning will subject residents, many of whom will live almost exclusively indoors, to the toxic
substances that collect inside conventionally-designed buildings. The residents will have no
alternative but to be exposed to building toxins ("indoor air pollution") on a 24-hour basis,whereas
if the building is naturally ventilated, they will have 24-hour access to fresh air. It would be a shame
for this building to unnecessarily become what we, in my end of the profession, call an energy
guzzling toxic pig.
2. Air handling equipment is noisy and may impact neighbors adversely. See "Noise"
above.
3. It is unconscionable to waste non-renewable energy air conditioning in our climate
instead of designing buildings properly. Our electricity comes from burning oil or natural gas
(Morro Bay power plant). We pollute our air when we do this. Globally, word is out this week that
the USA is doing less than any other industrialized nation to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases
(CO2 emissions from electricity generation and transportation are biggest contributors). This
situation exists because of a national lack of commitment and thousands of tiny unfocused
decisions like those that come before the ARC every meeting.
The city's policy commitment to energy conservation through using natural ventilation
rather than energy-intensive mechanical air handling is clear. The General Plan Energy Element
(Program 26) has the following directive to the ARC:
"The Architectural Review Commission will play an expanded role in encouraging energy-
efficient project design by requiring designers to make conscious choices and to justify
proposals... Thegoal of such review would be nro�ects which make maximum use of solar
exposure natural ventilation and passive means of reducing conventional energy demand as
Mosed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain
comfort.
I submit that part of this project's ventilation problem is image driven: the image of happy family
dining in the congregate dining area to please family members, the exterior image of a huge, hotel-
like building offering shelter to the fragile. If the ARC holds this project to the globally-important
standard laid out in the Energy Element, it will provide the neighborhood side benefit of helping to
force a redesign that reduces building bulk and increases project resident.health, comfort and
welfare.
Request:esquire a redesign of interior spaces that have the effects of reducing exterior bulk and
size of the building while improving the humane functioning of the interior and reduce energy
consumption.
In conclusion, it is clear that this huge building, sandwiched between a residential street, a creek, a
driveway and a parking lot is simply too large and too bulky for the proposed site. Please direct either
that its design be substantially altered, as specifically requested item-by-item above, or that the
developer turn his attention to the Ramona end of the property where the neighborhood incompatibility
issues raised here will largely cease to exist.
Thank you.
Richard Schmidt
Schmidt to ARC,Page 4
RICHARD A. SCHMIDT, Architect
P. O. Box 112, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 544-4247
March 11, 1997
Re: Village Expansion, March 12 agenda
To the Planning Commission:
In its present form, this project ought not to be approved. The project is very poorly designed,
and as a result is unnecessarily large and bulky. Some brief planning comments follow. Please
see my comments to the ARC for more detailed critique.
urge you not to approve this project as submitted. It needs either a major redesign, if it is to be
located at the developer's proposed site. or to be moved to another location on the developer's
property (Ramona Street) where its compatibility problems will loom less large.
1. A building of the size proposed for the parking lot on Broad Street will be an intrusion into the
single family residential neighborhood that is intolerable, and, if allowed, will present concrete
evidence of the city's indifference towards protecting its established neighborhoods. Please
consider the following:
A. As you stand on Broad Street looking at the parking lot, realize that the building proposed
to cover the entireap rking lot and be a mere 15 feet from the street would be about the
same height as the shorter of the tall palm trees in the parking lot! That is clearly a building
of inappropriate height, mass and size for this location, directly adjoining a stable single
family neighborhood. REMEMBER, THE ZONING CODE'S NUMBERS ARE MAXIMUMS,
NOT ENTITLEMENTS.
B. The building proposed is even taller than the too tall upper limit theoretically permitted by
city code. There is absolutely no excuse for a height exception.
C. This building violates numerous provisions of the General Plan, including many in the
LUE "Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods" section, including
1. LUE2.2.10. ".. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should be
compatible with ANY nearbylower density development. A... New buildings should
respect existing buildings... in terms of size, spacing and variety. B... New buildings will
respect the privacy... of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where
multistory buildings... may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings."Clearly, this huge
building conforms to none of the above. It not only doesn't respect their size, will overpower
the small houses around it, while blocking views and deflecting traffic noise towards
established homes. (See ARC comments for discussion of traffic noise impacts.)
2. LUE 2.2.2. "Residential areas should be separated or screened from incompatible, non
residential activities... Residential areas should be protected from encroachment by
Schmidt to Planning Commission, re Village, Page 1
detrimental commercial... activities."While staff apparently considers the project
"residential," I would suggest to you that the huge personal care institution proposed is in
fact also a "commercial" activity which by its very size is incompatible with nearby
residential activities.
3. LUE "2.2.12. Residential Project Objectives. Residential projects should provide:
A. Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project."This project creates massive
overlook of the entire neighborhood.
"B. Adequate usable outdoor area... oriented to receive light and sunshine."There is no
outdoor area for the assisted living facility other than a "courtyard"that will be in the
shade all winter and much of spring and fall.
"C. Use of natural ventilation, sunlight and shade to make indoor... spaces comfortable
with minimum mechanical support."A building with such a fat cross section cannot
provide natural ventilation. It will probably be air conditioned, which violates provisions of
the Energy Element as well as this section of the LUE.
"D. Pleasant views ... toward the project."Neighbors who now have views of San Luis
Mountain and Bishop Peak will not find a 38-foot tall building facade to be "pleasant" by
comparison.
"G. Adequate parking... space."The project as proposed is notoriously underparked. The
calculations presented both by the developer and staff are absurd. My experience with
this sort of facility indicates that parking demand is intense -- for staff and visitors -- and
increases over time as service levels increase due to market competition for customers.
Note also that much of the parking to be removed is currently being used by the Village.
Note the row of handicapped spaces, usually in use, the van spaces, as well as general
parking within the lot fenced off from the Village which are used by Village occupants and
visitors. Finally, the city's parking regulations are absurdly optimistic: think about
Scolari's/Payless and Trader Joes, for two obvious examples, where parking
requirements are met but there's never enough parking.
"l. Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front
yards along streets, and entryways facing public wa/kways.AThis project violates all of the
above. Again, my experience with this sort of facility suggests that a front porch facing
Broad would be popular with the inmates, and would provide them with an interesting way
to pass the day.
LUE "2.8.1. Large group housing ... such as retirement homes... should not be located in
low-densisty residential areas."Although the zoning on the project parcel may be
permissive, the corner of the parcel where this massive project is proposed to be located is
in a"low-density residential area." If the project is to be so massive, it should be along the
Ramona commercial corridor.
4. Housing Element 1.10.6 (goal) "Preserve the quality of existing neighborhoods..."Clearly,
a project which overpowers a neighborhood does not preserve its quality.
2. The site planning is in conflict with both the city's new creek setback ordinance (a law) and
the Flood Management Policy directive on bridges (a regulation adopted by the Council).
A. Setback problems. I believe the top of bank shown on the site plan is incorrect in that.it
Schmidt to Planning Commission, re Village, Page 2
places the top of bank too far to the south -- i.e., off the developer's property. Either the top
of bank designation is incorrect, or the parking lot is shown in the wrong place. In any event,
there's an obvious incompatibility between what is shown and what exists on site. The
ordinance requires a minimum 20 foot setback from top of bank or from edge of riparian
vegetation, which ever would be greater. This project meets neither requirement. Since plans
show the building intruding into the vegetation, clearly the setback requirement is nowhere
close to being met. Please see my ARC comments for more on this, as well as a suggested
modification requirement.
B. The bridge. The Flood Management Policy prohibits bridges unless there is no feasible
alternative. This property already has THREE bridges, which provide feasible alternatives.
Clearly the "no feasible alternative" standard cannot be met. Why should a fourth bridge be
permitted? Please see ARC comments, in which I suggest removal of existing footbridges as
a requirement if a new bridge is permitted.
3. Parking. This was alluded to above. Adequate parking must be provided up front. Rumor has
it that the developer plans to build on yet another parking lot in the future, then acquire houses
in our neighborhood, demolish them, and build off-site parking lots. This would not only not be
permitted by zoning, but it makes very clear that this project just isn't compatible with its
surroundings. It will begin the creeping, step-by-step ruination of our neighborhood.
I believe the Commission needs to caution this developer that he could be boxing himself in if he
overbuilds the site, and then ends up with too little parking to have operational flexibility.
Apparently he is either naively oblivious to this possibility, or believes that the city will let him do
whatever he wants once the crunch point is reached.
Frankly, I marvel at the size of the facility being proposed. A 64=unit assisted living facility is a
very large one even for a big city. It seems entirely inappropriate for San Luis Obispo. I wonder
if the developer has really done his homework on this, and I wonder if he can really pull it off if
permitted to build it. And if he cannot, then what? This building could become anotherlap nning
headache the equivalent of the Walter Brothers building if too much is allowed to be placed on a
site that can only function, under city regulations, with the single use currently proposed. At
some point, the city needs to take a long-range view of the possible consequences of what it
permits in the short range.
Conclusion: This project presents too many incompatibilities, general plan inconsistencies and
code violations or stretches to be approved. I believe there are two reasonable alternatives:
A much smaller, more compatible project on the proposed site; or
Move the project to Ramona, attach it to the end of the Village, in which case it will not only
operate more efficiently (no need to duplicate kitchens or other facilities, for example) and
would face onto a commercial area where many of the compatibility problems raised at the
present location would cease to exist.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
Schmidt to Planning Commission, re Village, Page 3
J \i
MEETINGell
GENDA
WILLIAM R. McLENNAN DATE ¢'��' EM #
ATTORNEY AT LAW
RAILROAD SQUARE
1880 SANTA BARBARA•SECOND FLOOR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 CpUNCIL �DUDIR
ceos>544-7950 U-6A0
CAO ❑ DIR
D FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY
Cd`C"OI�IG D L] O DIR
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ EC DIR RECIR
DHF
3 C RW
FILE O UTIL DIR
0 PERSDIR
Honorable Mayor and City Council April 14, 1997
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401
Re: Response to Staff Report/61 Broad Street Project (The Heritage at Garden Creek)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
First, the neighborhood group would like to thank each of you for meeting with us
and listing to our concerns relating to the proposed Heritage at Garden Creek. Thank you for
treating us with respect and listening to our hope that the new project will blend with a balanced,
vibrant neighborhood.
After reading and discussing the staff report concerning this project, the
neighborhood group has several concerns and suggestions that we hope will lead to a resolution
of this matter. The Heritage at Garden Creek must be analyzed and then classified consistently as
either a senior residential complex(as the rest of the project) or, as staff has proposed,
analogous to a"convalescent hospital" before parking and density limits are set for this project. If
one classification is used for parking and another for density, the neighborhood will not be
protected from parking and density problems, the zoning regulations will be violated, and
decisions concerning use variations (IE "Use Changes" 17.16.060 L3 )will be impossible to make
in the future.
The neighborhood is willing to accept the staff position that Heritage at Garden
Creek is a"convalescent hospital"if the possibility of that future use is realistically applied to this
project and all calculations assume that, at a minimum, two persons will or may be placed in
each room of approximately 400 square feet. We are also requesting the additional employee
parking formula that has been applied to the rest of the project: employee parking calculated at 1
space per each 5 units.
RECEIVED
APR 14 lyy/
CITY COUNCIL^e
If the applicant requests and receives a 50% density bonus( 25% pursuant to
Planned Development criteria and 25% pursuant to 17.90.030)the project will have:
43.5 units and;
31 parking spaces (1 per 4 beds, plus 1 per each 5 units for staff).
If the applicant requests and receives a 25% density bonus, the project will have:
36 units and;
25 parking spaces
I have included density and parking calculations for the Heritage at Garden Creek
if it is classified as a either a"convalescent hospital"or as a senior residential facility, as is the rest
of this project. As you will note, each classification has advantages and disadvantages but it is
totally inappropriate to allow the applicant to utilize the"best" of each classification. A
"convalescent hospital"classification restricts the density of the project but allows less parking
and the "senior residential" classification allows more units but also requires more parking.
Finally, the Heritage at Garden Creek is being placed on its own parcel and could
be sold at any time. All required parking must be on the parcel created for this new building
or the neighborhood will be threatened. The proposed easement and parking lot, because of its
distance from the Heritage building, will not protect the neighborhood and appears (since the
bulk of the parking lot is over 300 feet away)to violate the spirit and intention of section
17.16.060 (Off Site Parking), which requires off-site parking to be `within 300 feet of the use
and shall not be separated from the use by any feature which would make pedestrian access
inconvenient or hazardous. The site on which the parking is located will be owned, leased or
otherwise controlled by the party controlling the use."
I hope this input from the neighborhood will facilitate a compromise and preserve
this historic neighborhood. Once again, thank you for your time and consideration.
S' cerely,
William R. McLennan
l ti
r
DENSITY CALCULATIONS - "CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL"
DENSITY REQUIREMENTS
Maximum persons allowed per acre: 55
with 25% density bonus .69 persons per acre
with 50% density bonus 82.5 persons per acre
(25% bonus pursuant to Planned Development, 25% pursuant to 17.90.030)
DENSITY ALLOWED ON SITE:
with 25% density bonus 72 persons on site
with 50% density bonus 87 persons on site
UNITS ALLOWED ON SITE:
with 25%density bonus 36 units
with 50%density bonus 43.5 units
PARKING SPACES REQUIRED:
with 25%bonus 25 (1/4 + 1 per 5 units)
with 50%bonus 30.5 (1/4+1 per 5 units)
DENSITY CALCULATIONS - SENIOR RESIDENTIAL
UNITS ALLOWED
Maximum apartments per acre: 24
with 25% density bonus: 30
with 50% density bonus: 36
UNITS ALLOWED ON SITE (1.05 acre )
w/o bonus 50
with 25%bonus 63
with 50% bonus 75.6
PARKING REQUIRED ( .5 per unit plus I space per 5 units)
with 25%bonus: 44.1
with 50%bonus: 52.9
/ w
IwtETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
Honorable Mayor and City Council April 14 , 1997
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re; 61 and 55 Broad Street Project (The Heritage at Garden Creek)
Dear Mayor and Council members :
Attached you will find a survey of 40 homeowners
who received city notice cards . These neighbors UNANIMOUSLY
agree that the proposed building should be no more than
two stories high and all parking should be on-site and
on the same lot.
You can also note that the average length of residency
in our neighborhood is approximately 30 years . We hope
you wi.l-1. listen to our concerns and help preserve our
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Signatures as follows :
VCCOUNCIL
CAO ❑ FIN DIR
IYACAO ❑ FIRECHIEF
9TTORNey ❑ PW DIR
LERMRIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ CR FI_E ❑ U PL DIR
REcE v ED
APR Itiy�
CITY COUNCIL ^o
re.•
April 2 , 1997
To the Mayor and City Council ,
I understand that there is a proposed 64 unit development
for the parking lot at 61 Broad Street. I believe the
structure should blend in with the neighborhood and be
no more than 2 stories in height.
Ample parking for all residents , staff, and guests must
be provided on the same parcel as proposed building, rather
than through easement rights to the parking lot on Palomar
and Ramona.
Please take into consideration the impact this project
will have on our neighborhood.
aw rU!'&z�) 7oZ1 �19���►�
no IgoW ev- ti
� ile��hn ,ho i
P44-
'J
/ z
�
Till
sem ;
,
b7av �+� Q1,
ow
y ) fi 2
y4 ►�s) Y Iii���� �K
ey
zr
1
6��-6'��— ►-{ 1 5 p!e Ml o b 121 5 IL o , Cv
� 6 y
or
;Jut riva � 11�� Y> �� a'vLOS'. Co, �Ya.
SL 0
I Z yes
38�� , r
Lc.� li' 7
SIA
C •
J f
MILTING AGENDA
DATE. ITEM #
Draft Planning
Commission Minutes
for
61• Broad Street
Appeal
PD/ER 158-96
OUNCIL CDU DIR
CAO ❑ FIN DIR
[Y ACRO ❑ FIRE CHIEF.
P*IWINEY ❑ PW DIR
12 CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C RfA.D
PILE ❑ UTIL DIR
'� _ ❑ PERS DIR
4
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997 b.
Page 28
REFRAIN: Commissioners Senn, Jeffrey, and Chairman Karleskint
Acting Chairwoman Whittlesey moved to recommend to the Council, in their drafting of
the RFP, for the airport area specific plan, to direct staff to examine and come forward
with a recommendation regarding existing and potential categories of zoning currently in
the airport area. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis.
AYES: Acting Chairwoman Whittlesey and Commissioners, Kourakis, Ewan, and
Ready
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
REFRAIN: Commissioners Senn, Jeffrey, and Chairman Karleskint
4. 55 and 61 Broad Street: PD/ER 158-96: Review of proposed changes to the site
as an amendment to the gcisting planned development and review of environmental
determination for senior housing addition. The project includes changing the
occupancy of the apartments at 61 Broad street from primarily student to senior
housing and interior and exterior changes to the building to accommodate the change,
including a multi-purpose room addition. The other major project component is a new
three-level assisted care facility to be located in the parking lot area near Broad Street;
R-4-PD Zone, Smith & Company, applicant.
Commissioners Ewan and Ready refrained from participation due to potential conflicts of
interest.
Associate Planner Lautner presented the staff report, recommending the Commission
approve the amendments to the planned development, with conditions.
Commissioner Kourakis clarified the 35' height is allowed by the ordinance. The
Commission doesn't have to consider an exception.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked staff if there was any consideration of limiting hours for
deliveries.
Associate Planner Lautner replied no, not specifically.
The public hearing was opened.
Hamish Marshall, Smith & Company representative, discussed the need for a parcel map.
Currently there is lot line running through the parking lot and they cannot build over an
existing lot line.
r
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 29
Mr. Marshall stated they have asked the city to recognize the whole site as one campus.
They are trying to build a multi-level care facility which would provide independent living-
and assisted-living facilities. 'They are owner-operators. The idea of building this
development is not to turn it around in 2-3 years and sell it to a larger operator.
Mr. Marshall stated some neighbors have raised a concern about parking. He displayed a
transparency showing the number of employees at The Village and industry norms for
assisted-living facilities. He explained that the industry norm for parking for an assisted
care facility the size of The Heritage is 11 and they are supplying 22.
Mr. Marshall stated at The Village they have 136 residents and 33% have cars. The
number of employees on at any one time is 20. The number of employees who drive is 16.
They only need 65 parking spaces and they're supplying 116.
Mr. Marshall stated the calculation of average parking use from The Village was applied
to the building at 61 Broad St. and they've come up with 32 total parking spaces. They
have 42 parking spaces on Parcel 1.
Mr. Marshall displayed plans for The Heritage. He said they tried to place the building on
proposed Parcel 1 and. at the back of The Village. With the needed setbacks from
buildings and creek, to put the building on either site would require that the building be
reduced by approximately 50%and this wouldn't make a feasible project.
Mr. Marshall said his company has tried to respond to comments from the neighbors and
the Architectural Review Commission. There were comments the building was too high,
about parking, and setbacks from the streets and creek. They have worked hard to make
sure the setback from the creek is correct. They actually want to enhance the creek. They
have agreed with the mitigation measures to implement a riparian program to enhance the
creek.
Mr. Marshall stated they had made preliminary design changes and they've made the front
of the building one level, 15' high, with a 15' setback from the Broad Street property line.
Then the building is stepped back into a two-story building with a 28' setback. The
building doesn't reach three stories until 72' back. They have reduced the height from
384" to 35'. They are working hard to meet the requests and concerns of the neighbors
and the ARC.
Mr. Marshall stated this project is needed. There are 130 on the waiting list for The
Village. There is nowhere to go'for an assisted-living facility in San Luis Obispo. They
are trying to build a campus that provides people with a place to age in place. To make at
move at 70 years is difficult and moving again at 85 is even more difficult.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 30
Mr. Marshall stated he is asking for approval of the project, subject to the recommended
mitigation measures and conditions, except Condition 3.
In a response to a question from Commissioner Jeffrey, Mr. Marshall stated that at any
one time there would be 1-2 administrators, one housekeeper,a cook, 2-3 prep cooks, a
therapist, and two general assistants on site.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated there are 3-4 assisted-care facilities in the city, but here is
nothing of this size.
Mr. Marshall stated they are six-bed homes.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated assisted care will require much the same care as a
convalescent home in terms of living skills. The norm for an aide or CNA is about one per
ten or one per 14 patients. Commissioner Jeffrey feels the number of employees is
understated.
Mr. Marshall stated 108 parking spaces is the projected need. The are providing 186 in
case the demand is over what is expected.
Pat Smith, applicant, displayed a diagram explaining levels of care and stated the facility at
61 Broad St. Can handle up to 200 students. The facility at The Village has handled 410
students. They have reduced the population.
Mr. Smith stated the students are impacting the parking lot. The average age in the
facility will be 84 and the average right now is 80. There will not be a lot of drivers in this
population. Even if the projected parking is doubled, they will still provide enough
parking. Their campus will provide senior housing, assisted living, and someday they're
hoping to do an actual skilled nursing facility. They are willing to agree to a condition of
reciprocal parking. This location is convenient for people to walk to the market, drug
store, and bus stop. They can provide the quality of care that is missing in this
community. For the assisted living facility to work, they need to have a minimum of 60
rooms, and they can't fit it anywhere else on the property. They are trying to coordinate
with the neighbors. The property is in the highest zone allowed in the city. He expressed a
concern about the ARC dictating their direction, without the ability to come back to the
Commission or Council.
Mr. Smith stated the Commission submitted a petition signed by 140 persons in favor of
the project. He also gave the Commission a letter signed by supporters who were angry
because they could not attend the meeting because the item was placed late on the agenda.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission b.
March 12, 1997
Page 31
Mr. Smith stated the parcel map is basically a means to obtain financing. They would like
to achieve a fourth parcel so they can continue to plan and move forward with the final
phase of the project. They've had a meeting at the property and invited the neighbors.
Commissioner Kourakis asked how Mr. Smith would change Condition 3.
Mr. Smith stated if they cannot accept the ARC's action, they would like to be able to
come back Commission or Council without stopping the processing of the project.
Associate Planner Lautner stated applicants have a right to appeal an ARC decision to the
Council.
Mr. Smith the youngest resident they've had was 57. The average age is in the 80s.
Commissioner Whittlesey stated if the ages are lowered, more cars could possibly be used.
b.
Mr. Smith stated they will stay with 62 years as a minimum.
Associate Planner Lautner stated the planned development approval recommendation
states the minimum age as 55. There should be some allowances made for special
circumstances for younger spouses of those who qualify for this facility.
Bill McClennan, 706 Meinecke, distributed a handout to the Commission. He stated
everybody agrees this is a good project. The scale, size, and parking is what the neighbors
are concerned about. The ARC had extreme problems with this project and they didn't
ask for just minor alterations.
Mr. McClennan stated to get the parking reductions for senior housing, the project needs
to comply with section 17.16.060 J which says the housing has to be exclusively occupied
by persons aged 62 or older. There is no exception for spouses or younger ages. These
rules must be followed. The normal requirement for a boarding house would be 442
spaces. This is not an insignificant concession and there has to be compliance with the age
requirement. There is no parking added for staff in the calculations for The Heritage.
Section 17.20.020 addresses density bonuses and the code makes sense, but is being
interpreted differently. Group housing and density requires an occupancy limit. A ceiling
is needed. The occupancy limit shall reflect habitable space within buildings. If two
people are put in each apartment, you come out with persons per acre grossly exceeding
the calculation given to the Commission. We don't have any guarantees and we don't
know if this project will be stuffed. He wanted to see appropriate maximum occupancy
limits are set. Mr. McClennan said a planned development specifically lays out what you
have to do to qualify for the 25% density bonus. To get this you need a detailed statement
from the applicant and we don't have one. Planned developments are special to the
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 32
community and have to provide benefits. That's what important here. Desire can't
override the other concerns that must be met in code.
Mr. McClennan stated there have been a lot of promises and nothing has been specifically
included in the Emits for this project. He would like designated parking and the two-hour
Emit left on Meinecke and Broad.
Commissioner Senn asked Mr. McClennan his specific objections.
Mr. McClennan said the applicant should follow the specific procedures outlined in the
planned development density bonus section He feels the age should be set according to
code. An occupancy limit must be set at this site. Maximum occupancy limits protect us
all.
Bob Rowntree, city resident, walked over this afternoon to the parking lot and counted
125 vehicles. He stated it may be an industry figure that half of the employees don't drive,
but that's because these facilities are often in large urban areas where there is public
transportation. This facility will operate 24 hours. Because of overlapping shifts, parking
will be increased. Mr. Rowntree feels the number of visitor spaces is unreasonable. A
practical figure is one space per-bed. There are concerns about emergency response
vehicles. Mitigation Measure 8 requires control of the traffic lights. The present access
for emergency vehicles to the Village is overwhelmingly down Meinecke. There will be a
higher frequency of emergency vehicles.
Darrell Goo, applicants' representative, stated they have been on the site numerous times
surveying the site. The parking now is mostly students. When this project is built, the
parking lot will no longer be needed because the density will drop. The noise level will
also drop for the neighbors.
Greg Stafford, 672 Serrano, 46, stated his condo overlooks the swimming pool. He's
liven in this condo for 19 years. He is grateful for this project. He won't have to see the
kids fighting and can't imagine the seniors having fisticuffs like he's witnessed for the last
19 years. He won't miss the squealing of tires at all hours. What he's experienced is
almost beyond belief. His name is on records scores of times over the years for calling the
police. This won't happen if the seniors take over. He rarely hears sirens for emergency
vehicles at The Village. The building has been stepped back and it's a creative way of
handling the mass issue. He's supportive of this project and encourages approval.
James Barlow, 544 Princeton, stated he's been in town 45 years. His wife's mother is a
resident of The Village. She will need assisted-health care and there is no place in this
area to get it. Their friends Have gone to Oregon to find a place that has this type of
facility. This facility has been needed for a long time because we have a lot of retired
people in this town. He hopes this is approved.
. Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 33
Florence Tartaglia, 70 Broad, said we do need a facility like this. However, she will lose
her view. She's lived here for 47 years and this massive, huge building will obliterate her
view. She has lived with the student problem. This facility should be compatible with any
nearby, lower-density development. New buildings should respect existing buildings in
terms of size and spacing and variety and should respect the privacy of neighboring
buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multi-story buildings may overlook
adjacent dwellings. This huge building in front of her house is not welcome. There will be
a parking disaster created. These facilities usually have more than one occupant per room.
This project can be smaller and still be viable. The price is usually over $3,000 per month.
This is big business. She wonders what will happen with the parking when the
convalescent home finally opens. This area will become more congested.
Jan Scuri, 64 Broad St. also representing her mother, ho lives at 69 Broad, stated her
mother has lived here for 23 years and is 79 and can't attend the hearing. She feels she's
before the Commission because some developers bought some really beautiful land that
has a creek, trees, views, and an existing building. Her parents bought this land for the
same features. If this building goes in, these features will be gone. People should be
entitled to build on their land, but they have to consider of the neighborhood. This
neighborhood has been established for 30 years. They've endured all the problems and this
project will create more. She stated 10 days ago the waiting list for the Village was 70
and tonight the applicants stated it's 130. She doesn't believe the applicants are telling the
truth. The Ramona side of the property would be a better location if anything is going to
be built. She is a Hospice volunteer and visits these facilities everyday and there is never
any parking.
Charlotte Moskiman, 85 Broad St., has lived on Broad .for 45 years. She is scared by
what she hears about this project because it's so massive. It's practically next door to her.
This project is too massive and she doesn't want to have to look at it.
Mr. Marshall stated they aren't coming into this project just as developers thinking this is a
great idea. They've researched and spent time and money over the last 12 months. They
are also involved in Santa Barbara and Phoenix. The proposed design of the building, the
placement, the open space were well researched. The concern that there will be two
people in every apartment is not justified. Even the city's calculations for parking indicate,
they are 40 spaces over parked.
Mr. Smith stated the area proposed to be built on is slightly below street level. They will
not cut off any hilltop views. The height will not exceed the tree heights currently in the
creek area. The building was stepped back to lower the impact. They are trying to
mitigate the problems and be a good neighbor.
The public hearing was closed.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 34
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS:
Commissioner Kourakis asked staff to comment on Mr. McClennan's parking calculations.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated the density bonus section cited by Mr. McClennan
doesn't apply. She cited, Section 17.90.030 D of the Zoning Regulations. If they could
have met the planned development findings, they probably could have gotten a 25%
bonus plus the 25% affordable bonus. She feels comfortable with the density calculations
provided by staff.
Commissioner Senn is hearing the developer say by having four separate parcels, he's got
financial flexibility in the future. He asked staff if we would accomplish for.the city what
they're trying to accomplish if there were some conditions or language in the parcel map
which became recorded and essentially placed restrictions on the last parcel.
Associate Planner Lautner stated reciprocal parking agreements can be recorded.
Commissioner Kourakis stated, in response to a point in Mr. McClennan's letter, the
Commission doesn't require assigned parking for any other use in the city. The parking
calculations include employee parking. She doesn't know how a cap can be placed on the
number of cars owned by occupants. Setting parking counts include some allowance for
visitors. A two-hour parking limits on Broad St. is beyond what the Commission is can
do. The ARC will look at and requires landscaping. The applicant has adjusted the
height. She supported the project.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated this is a unique project for this city and county. He suggested
that maybe a parking calculation for another use could have been used for a comparison,
such as boarding houses. He questioned the parking calculations because the formula
doesn't apply here. The estimated number of employees doesn't seem accurate.
Commissioner Kourakis stated they are meeting the city requirements. The city
requirements aren't changed from project to project.
Ik
Commissioner Jeffrey wondered if it would be possible to institute mitigation measures
that can be used down the road if the parking is inadequate.
Commissioner Senn stated if there becomes a parking problem on site, the first person
who's going to know is the operator of the project. The Commission is going by city
guidelines and staff analysis. The applicant can establish reasonable parking rules like
other businesses.
Commission Jeffrey stated if the capacity is understated, there is a problem.
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission
March 12, 1997
Page 35
Commissioner Whittlesey suggested further research on parking at Las Brisas, for
example.
Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated the Commission needs to focus on a formula or
model existing in our zoning code. A model can't be created just for this project.
Commissioner Jeffrey feels this is an excellent project and is needed in the city. His only
concern is the parking.
Commissioner Kourakis moved to approve amendments to the planned development,
allowing conversion of 61 Broad St. to senior occupancy only and the addition of a facility
for assisted care living (The Heritage), with modifications to conditions and mitigation
measures recommended by staff, to change the minimum age of residents to 62, to require
that all exterior (not just parking lot) lighting be designed to eliminate glare, to require
interior and exterior recycling facilities in existing building to be remodeled and to require
recycling of construction waste, and with the elimination of proposed mitigation measure
no. 1 because it is no longer relevant. The commission also recommended approval of the
parcel map, dividing the site into four parcels, with conditions to assure that the project's
viability is not compromised by the sale of any of the parcels. Commissioner Senn
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Whittlesey expressed concern regarding the hours of deliveries to the new
facility.
Commissioner Senn stated we have an ordinance which speaks to this issue.
AYES: Commissioners Kourakis, Senn, Whittlesey, Jeffrey, and, Chairman
Karleskint
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
REFRAIN: Commissioners Ewan and Ready
Commissioner Senn moved to recommend to the Hearing Officer that the map be
approved with four parcels, subject to conditions requiring reciprocal access and parking
easements for all parcels. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis.
AYES: Commissioners Senn, Kourakis, Jeffrey, and Chairman Karleskint
NOES: Commissioner Whittlesey
ABSTAIN: None
REFRAIN: Commissioners Ewan and Ready