Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/1998, 2A - REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT (LUE) MAP DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AMEND THE ZONING MAP FROM C-N TO R-4-S AND APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY; 1234 LAU e GP/R,ER 11-98,SLO Alzheimer Facility Page 2 occurred, the site was graded as one flax pad covering the majority of the property with access from Laurel Lane. The remaining perimeter of the property either slopes or contains retaining walls. The Southwood and Laurel Lane street frontages were landscaped presumably at that time. This landscaping is proposed to remain. Surrounding land uses include a residential care facility, office, and fire station to the general north, neighborhood commercial shopping center to the general east, single and multi-family residential to the general south,and light industrial to the west. Project Description The Laurel Bowl bowling alley and Colombo's restaurant currently occupy the site. The prop- erty has been sold and the new owners want to redevelop the property as a residential care facil- ity for alzheimer/dementia residents. To this end,they have applied to the City for a general plan amendment,rezoning,use permit,environmental review and architectural review. The submitted applications propose to change the LUE map designation for the site from Neighborhood Com- mercial to High Density Residential, and to rezone the site from C-N to R-4 and allow the prop- erty to be developed as a residential care facility. An additional R-4 zoned upper parking lot, which is available for use by bowling alley patrons, is owned by the applicant, but is on a sepa- rate parcel and is not a part of the proposed project Advisory Bodv Recommendation.. On April 22, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed this project, approved the use permit for a residential care facility (contingent upon the finalization of the General Plan Amendment and Rezone) and recommended approval of the General Plan and zoning amendments (with the Spe- cial Considerations Overlay) to the City Council. On May 4, 1998, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed and unanimously approved the proposed architectural design subject to 18 conditions of approval. Overall the ARC was very pleased with the project design and com- mended the applicant on his efforts to enhance the architectural design of the existing structure. EVALUATION General Plan Consistency There are numerous General Plan policies that relate to.the conversion of this property from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential. City staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed these policies (see attached Planning Commission staff report for analysis) and found the proposed General Plan amendment to comply with the General Plan. The General Plan calls for areas for Neighborhood Commercial uses to meet the frequent shop- ping demands of people living nearby. The General Plan indicates the maximum size of neigh- cm �� f GP/R,ER 11-98,SLO Alzheimer Facility Page 3 borhood commercial centers should not exceed 8 acres. No minimum size is indicated. The Laurel Lane neighborhood commercial node currently occupies 4.5 acres of C-N land. Acreage Use 2 acres Neighborhood Commercial Uses(Kaney's Market,etc.) 1 acre Undeveloped 1%z acres Community Serving Commercial Uses(bowling alley) Of this 4 '/z acres, two acres are currently developed with neighborhood serving uses, 1%z acres are developed with community serving uses, and one acre remains undeveloped. The area,as cur- rently developed appears to meet the frequent shopping demands of people living nearby. Rezoning Analysis As a part of the project proposal, the applicant is proposing to reduce the total amount of land designated in the City as Neighborhood Commercial by approximately 1'/z acres. Currently there are approximately 14 acres of land designated as Neighborhood Commercial zoning in the City of San Luis Obispo. Of that 14 acres, approximately 2 acres remains undeveloped. The vacant two acres is located within three sites: the northwest corner of Prado Road and South Higuera, the southeast comer of Broad and South Street, and the northeast comer of Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive. The loss of 1%z acres of C N is not a significant issue because one acre of C- N zoned land remains available for neighborhood commercial uses. Additionally, the site has never been used for neighborhood serving uses so that type of use will not be lost with the devel- opment of this facility. The applicant is requesting a zone change from C-N to R-4. The existing C N zoning allows the property to be developed with a maximum density of 12 du/net acre while the proposed R-4 zoning would allow the property to be developed at a maximum density of 24 du/net acre. It is very likely that the request to develop the site as a residential care facility will be pursued,how- ever, in reviewing the proposal staff has considered the possibility that only the rezoning will be approved and a residential housing project is pursued. To ensure that any development of the property considers neighborhood compatibility, staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the Special Considerations "S° overlay zone be designated on the property. The "S' overlay zone is a tool to guarantee that the neighborhood compatibility issue is not overlooked. The spe- cial consideration for the site can be documented to provide direction with the review of the use permit to ensure any other development of the property will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not result in any negative impacts such as traffic. Environmental Review An initial study was prepared for the proposed General Plan amendment,rezoning and residential care facility use. The initial study identifies no significant environmental impacts as a result of J�3 J GP/R,ER 11-98,SLO Alzheimer Facility Page 4 the proposed project The project construction's impact on air quality was identified as a poten- tially significant impact, however mitigation measures have been added to the project to reduce the potential impact to less than significant. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the proposed General Plan and zoning map amendments, based on inconsistency with the general plan. 2. Approve the proposed General Plan and zoning map amendments without the requirement for the Special Considerations Overlay zone. 3. Continue review with direction to the applicant and staff. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONE ENTS No other departments object to the proposed change of land use at the site. Project specific re- quirements from other departments have been incorporated as conditions of the Architectural Review Commission approval. Attached: 1. Resolution for approval of general plan amendment/Exhibit A 2. Ordinance of introduction for proposed rezoning/Exhibit A 3. Resolution for denial of general plan amendment and rezoning 4. Vicinity Map 5. Planning Commission staff report 6. Planning Commission meeting minutes of April 22, 1998 7. Project Statement 8. Letters received from the public 9. Initial Study ER 11-98 10. Project plans(included in City Council packets) Note: Project plans are available for public review at the Community Development Department. . RESOLUTIONNO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION AT 1234 LAUREL LANE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. (GP 11-98) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 22, 1998, and recommended approval of the amendment to the City's General Plan Map;and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on May 19, 1998 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staffand reviewed by the Planning Commission;and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed map amendment is consistent with the policies of the General Plan; BE TT 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 the recommended mitigation therein adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the CityCouncil. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project:. 1. 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 ofproject 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. 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. O� Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 2 2. Mitigation MeasureFuture site development shall incorporate: ■ Skylights to maximize natural day lighting. • Operable windows to maximize nark ventilation. • Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use. 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. 3. Mitigation Measure' The new assisted care facility shall incorporate facilities for recycling. In addition, site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials such as concrete, drywall, wood, and metals from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. MonitA�am' 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. 4. 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 req architectural review Process,with special attention given to the heighter andtype of lighting fixtrues. Monitoring Program• Parking lot lighting shall be reviewed and monitored through the review of plans during architectural review and building permit plan check. 5. Mitigation Measure: If an archaeological or historical find is made during the construction of this ProJect, all work shall cease until an archaeologist documents the find. 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 Pro am Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through�the review of Plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff SECTION 2. Fin ' s. That this Council,after consideration of the request to amend the Land Use Element map designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential an the Planning Commission's recommendations,staff recommendations,public testimony,and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the health,safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because the land use change will result in the property being developed with residential uses. Ad'/ ResolutionNo. (1998 Series) Page 3 2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan which encourage the development of residential uses including those for special needs. 3. There remains sufficient land designated for Neighborhood Commercial elsewhere within city limits. SECTION 3. Approval. The request to amend the Land Use Element map designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential at 1234 Laurel Lane is hereby approved as shown on attached Exhibit A. SECTION 4. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in the documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use. SECTIONS. This amendment shall take effect at the expiration of 30 days following approvaL The General Plan Land Use Element map shall be amended as shown on the attached Exhibit A effective upon recordation of the Certificates of Compliance for the Lot Line Adjustment LLA 11-98. SECTION 6. This amendment shall take effect at the expiration of 30 days following approval. On motion of seconded by ,and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1998. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Resolution.No. (1998 Series) Page 4 . City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED: ey JCOA _¢ . endment \\\\\ i- ♦\ / //// \♦ \ ♦\ \\\ ♦ .\ /// 1 3 IF, BIT A IN IN —� \ tTc\\\\\\ ia NN IN IN \♦ \ \\\♦\\♦\♦♦ //// /i// / \\\\\\\♦ \\\\ •••••••...... \ \ IN \ IN ORCUTT dARGARITA — AREA • ; AREA =-._-_— - — ■ \ ♦\\\\ iaiuv>?�. ...�._ \ ORDINANCE NO. (1998 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM C-N to R4-S AT 1234 LAUREL LANE(R 11-98) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 22, 1998, and recommended approval of the amendment to the City's Zoning Map;and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on May 19, 1998 and has considered testimony of other interested parties,the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action,and the evaluation and recommendation of stag; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed revisions are consistent with the General Plan,the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances;and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission;and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION I. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration with the recommended mitigation therein adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project% 1. Mitigation Measure: Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 33072),all graded surfacesshall 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. 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. d�E w Ordinance No. (I 99S Series) Page 2 2. 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. 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 3. Mitigation Measure- The new assisted care facility shall incorporate facilities for recycling. In addition,site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials such as concrete, drywall, wood, and metals from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. Monit_g_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. 4. 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 throughthe req architectural review process,with special attention given to the height � and type of lighting fixtures. Monitoring Program• pig lot lighting shall be reviewed and monitored through the review of Plans during architectural review and building Permit Plan check. 5. Mitigation Measure- If an archaeological or historical find is made during the construction of this Project, all work shall cease until an archaeologist documents the find. 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. SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings; I. R4-S zoning will allow uses that are compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area. 2. The"S"overlay zoning will document that any proposed development should be reviewed for neighborhood compatibility and require the processing of an administrative use permit to establish any use. 2 Ordmance No. (1998 Series) Page 3 3. The project does not create a shortage of C-N zoned land available for neighborhood commercial development within city limits. 4. The site has never been developed with neighborhood serving uses nor has the need to develop additional neighborhood serving uses in the vicinity been identified. 5. The proposed zone change will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because the zone change will result in the property being developed with residential uses. SECTION I The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (R 11-98) is hereby approved and the property maned to High Density Residential with Special Considerations(R-4-S)as shown on attached Exhibit A. SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of Council members voting for and against' shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram- Tribune,a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect no than thirty(30)days after its final passage. sooner INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of 1998,on a motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf 3 Ordinance No. (1.998-Series) Page 4 APPROVED A$'TO:FORM: m eff rge en -- 4 •/3 PF C1 S-40 NOTE BELOW -SP Zone Change Exhibit 96 a_ -2 I 1234 Laurel Lane R-1-SP EXHIBIT A c%s- a R- 40 i �r F ^ `� 06 - \ 1 PD • ^� CO,�Np VOS-4 ct 0 a _ r Y < AVE � p� r �• R 4 -_-,/R-1-S-2$ Existing: C-N R-2-PD f' c/osg Proposed: R-4' R� ' PF �• ��- ` r > 5 C-N R-2 •. R-3-PD �o R-2' R-2-P HARNORY war di ' w a op 4 R a f 3- PD M- M R-3- -S . ()—saaY`.o.o Cln LIMITS c-s-P o C-5 c R-3 R-ir.i, vn R-4-S M-PD R-3 R-2-PD Gip R- ? �r ,off R-2 c-S-P RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A REQUEST FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR PROPERTY AT 1234 LAUREL LANE (GP/R/ER 11-98) WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 22, 1998,and recommended approval of the rezoning and amendment to the City 7s General Plan map;and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 19, 1998 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action,and the project evaluation and recommendationsof staff BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings That this Council,after consideration of a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element Map and the official zoning map,thereby designating and zoning the project site High Density Residential(R-4),makes the following findings: 1. It is not desirable to redesignate the site from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential because of the loss of potential neighborhood commercial serving uses that could occupy the site and serve the neighborhood (Council may insert different or additional findings) SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of the general plan map amendment and rezoning described above is hereby denied On motion of .seconded by .and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of ' 1998. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf RmolutimNo. (1998 Series) Page 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Al oiney Jeff Jorgensen Attachment 4 lie<1 R�oz A A4C v,s�� c v r` 1N M-'I V. M � PD 'IV . ^'T .I,w�t ;.Avg h 2� Ji;OPC'INU :•�'R� �'YiT es ` '`5�01 AY K � � u C y �?.y '_J \ �CY 9Z V.C N cN .ax Ir O E SOV p ►Woo ' - �J 1422 :424 ,424 D v\ _ II - �v NY 1420 AR 83- X5-9 VOS45 `ti T. .ARC 83'54,9+-= -.1El` zTRACT 20 oo 10 Aj Q ti T� 6 r a F, _R e3.� n � m �114 w� O � 4 .IZ s , r Attachment 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CON31ISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM# u BY: Peggy Mandeville,Associate Planner MEETING DATE: May 4, 1998 FROM: Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manago FILE NUMBER:ARC,A 11-98 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1234 Laurel Lane SUBJECT: Request to allow a conforming addition to a non-conforming structure and architectural review of plans to convert the existing Laurel Bowl into a 65 bed residential care facility which includes the remodel of the bowling alley building and the addition of 13,000 square feet of floor area. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Allow the conforming addition to the non-conforming structure by approving the use permit and grant final architectural approval to the project based on findings and subject to the conditions outlined in this report. BACKGROUND Situation The Laurel Bowl bowling alley and Colombo's restaurant currently occupy the site. The property has been sold and the new owners want to redevelop the property as a residential care facility for alzheimer/dementia residents. To this end,they have applied to the City for a general plan amendment,rezoning, use permit,environmental review and architectural review. On April 22, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's request for general plan amendment, rezoning and environmental review and forwarded the request to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. The City Council is scheduled to hear this request on May 19, 1998. Data Summary Applicant: Smith and Company Representative: same Existing Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial(C N) Existing General Plan Land Use Designation:Neighborhood Commercial Proposed Zoning:High Density Residential(R-4) Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation: High Density Residential Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Development Review Manager on April 16, 1998. Final action on the initial study will be taken by the City Council. ARC,A 11-98,SLO Alzheimer Facility Page 2 Site Description The site naturally slopes from northeast to southwest. When development of the bowling alley . occurred, the site was graded as one flat pad covering the majority of the property with access from Laurel Lane. The remaining perimeter of the property either slopes or contains retaining walls. The Southwood and Laurel Lane street frontages were landscaped presumably at that time. Surrounding land uses include a residential care facility, office, and fire station to the general north, neighborhood commercial shopping center to the general east, single and multi-family residential to the general south,and light industrial to the west. Project Description The applicant is proposing to convert the existing Laurel Bowl into a residential care facility for persons with alzheimer/dementia. The facility is proposed to be one story with a mission style architectural theme. The proposed 13,000 s.f. addition to the existing building will occur within the area currently used as the parldng lot fronting Laurel Lane. A total of 17 parldng spaces are proposed. All existing landscaping with the exception of an existing pine tree is proposed to remain. A series of retaining wall are proposed along the perimeter of the site to maintain a single level facility. For security of the residents, perimeter fencing is proposed The applicant has indicated that the 7 foot high fence noted on the landscape plan is no longer proposed. EVALUATION Site Design Project plans indicate that much of the current site design will remain the same. The driveway, perimeter landscaping, and bowling alley structure will all remain. Because less parking will be needed with this use, the existing structure will be expanded within the existing parling lot fronting Laurel Lane. The residential care facility has been designed as a three-pod system which offer a smaller home- like atmosphere. Administrative offices and a central litchen are also provided Each pod.is built around an outdoor courtyard and pathway system winch allows residents to walk within a secure fenced area. Staff recommends the placement of additional benches for use by the residents and the incorporation of water features within the secure outside areas if designed to not pose a safety hazard. Project plans indicate a seven foot high fence along the rear property line, however the applicant has indicated that the fence height will be lowered to comply with city standards. A series of retaining walls are needed to maintain a single story facility. These retaining walls ARC,A 11-98,SLO Alzheimer Faculity Page 3 have been stepped where possible to reduce their overall size and landscaping is proposed to eventually cover them. Staff recommends that the color and materials of the retaining wall be compatible with the overall building design. Building Design The single story building is proposed to be stucco with wood trim and a mission tile roof. A color and materials board will be available at the ARC meeting. An entry architectural feature and three false chimneys are proposed to extend above the single story roof line. With the exception of the rear building wall, the building facade appears to be visually broken up by the proposed architectural features. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the neighboring property owner on Southwood Drive to visually break up the massiveness of the rear retaining/building wall located on the property line with such things as landscaping and/or painting of the wall. Additionally, staff recommends that all mechanical equipment be screened from view from the public right of way. Parking The City's Zoning Regulations requires one parking space for every four beds plus two spaces for each.facility. The applicant is proposing 65 beds which requires 18 parking spaces. Project plans call for 17 parking spaces. One additional parldng space is needed if the applicants want approval for 65 beds. Staff recommends and the Planning Commission's action support that the applicant be allowed to have 65 beds if the required number of parking stalls can be provided in accordance with city code requirements. Conforming Addition to Non-Conforming Structure The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing bowling alley structure in the project design. The rear building wall of the bowling alley however, is located on the property line where a minimum 5 foot setback is normally required. To allow a conforming addition to a non- conforming structure,approval of an administrative use permit is required. The Municipal Code gives the ARC some authority to approve certain development exceptions as part of the architectural review process. Staff recommends approval of this request because given the grade change of approximately 10 feet,no useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full yard. ALTERNATIVES 1. Grant final approval of the project with items to return to the Commission. 2. Continue review with direction to the applicant and staff. 3. Deny the project. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Comments received from other Departments are included as conditions of approval. ARC,A 11-98,SLO Alzheimer Facility Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Approve the use permit to allow the conforming addition to a non-conforming structure and grant final approval of the architectural design based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findin s 1. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity because it is a relatively small residential project which as been designed in a way that minimizes any impacts to adjacent land uses. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan which encourage the development residential uses including those for special needs. 3. With approval of the administrative use permit, the proposed project complies with the City's Zoning Regulations. 4. The proposed project is appropriate and will be compatible with surrounding land uses through the required processing of an administrative use permit and architectural review. Conditions 1. The applicant shall provide some foam of emergency (foot/hose) access from both Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive(near the property lines). 2. An additional fire hydrant is required along Laurel Lane at or near the easterly property line. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement prepared by the County. The applicant shall provide the Community Development Department with a copy of the easement for documentation purposes. 4. The parking lot design shall comply with the City's Parking and Driveway standards. 5. Project parking shall be provided in accordance with the City's Zoning Regulations. 6. Approval of a fence height exception is required for fences exceeding required height limits. 7. Any exterior site lighting shall comply with City standards. Decorative light standards shall be approved by the Community Development Director. 8. The applicant shall .work with the neighboring property owner on Southwood Drive to visually break up the massiveness of the retaining/building wall located on the property line ARC,A 11-98,SLO Alzheimer Facility Page 5 with such things as landscaping and/or painting of the wall. 9. . Additional benches shall be located within the courtyard/walkway areas. 10. Each common area shall have access to the outside courtyard. 11. The applicant shall consider the use of water features within the courtyard/walkway areas. 12. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the public right of way. 13. All existing trees shall remain except the one pine tree in the northeasterly comer (proposed to be removed). No additional trees or replacements are required. 14. Bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the Bicycle Transportation Plan. 15. Each sleeping room shall have a bathroom and at least one window. 16.The color and materials of the retaining wall shall be compatible with the overall building design. 17.The redevelopment of the site triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the existing sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to redevelopment unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse,the owner shall submit a VHS video-tape documenting the internal condition of the pipe for Utilities Department approval. Attached: Vicinity Map Project Statement Project plans(included in Planning Commi.cion packets) Attachment 7 The Gardens, LLC a California Limited Liability CompcM January 23, 1998 Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Dear Planner. In late 1997 Smith and Company contracted to purchase the Laurel Lane Bowling Center. We are currently in escrow on the property and intend to close escrow in May of 1998 We propose to utilize the current bowling alley to construct a state of the art dementia care facility to service the San Luis Obispo County area. The existing building would be expanded and refitted to make this possible. It would consist of approximately 45 units . utilizing courtyards and open space on the property in order to maximize the quality of living for the elderly with dementia Currently dementia, often in the form of Alzheimer's, strikes nearly four million people. This disease manifests itself initially in loss of short term memory progressing to loss of memory for even the most basic of functions. Dementia patients loose the ability to absorb the meaning of words and images. Alzheimer's patients often wander aimlessly and many things tend to frighten them as they search relentlessly for stability. This disease tends to unravel lifetime neurological connections. Dementia, in the past,has been dealt with through administering drugs and resttaining those with dementia in order to control erratic behavior. However, with the latest research and technology it is apparent that this minority group of people can live a quality life in a facility such as the one that we are proposing. 555 Ramona D&c San Lids Olaspo,CA 93405 PH (805)544-7343 FAX(805)543-7325 Page 2 Community Development Department January 23, 1998 Laurel Lane Bowl is currently zoned commercial neighborhood (Cl), thus not allowing the development of any residential care facility (RCFE) over six units to be built. However, next door to Laurel Lane Bowl is a nursing home, that is currently understaffed and.over populated and adjacent to Laurel Lane Bowl is a low income congregate care facility. We would request that the Planning Commission consider our application to down zone Laurel Lane Bowl Property to R3. By malting this general plan amendment it would allow us to develop this much needed facility in San Luis Obispo. We believe that this proposal fits with the General Plan for the City of San Luis Obispo. It is stated that if there were to be a zone change, the City's General Plan would prefer it to be to R3-R2. This neighborhood is already serviced with a shopping center that is located directly across the road. If we were to build another shopping facility, there would be a direct loss of business in the current shopping center and would not be a benefit to the neighborhood. In addition to the above mentioned points, it is evident that San Luis Obispo's nursing homes are undcrstaffed and over crowded. This can be directly attributed to the fact that there are no facilities in either the county or the city that cater to the growing number of dementia cases in our elderly population. We look forward to you review and comments. Yours Harm 1. Project Manager LST 04/21/98 12:04 $805 541 8870 DIEHLOODER.eD Attachment 8 nJ O Karen J.'5oreneon P 1268 Woodside v� San Luis Obispo, CA 95401 54.4-8781 - home / 541-1000 - office l� April 21, 1998 Ms. Jan Howell Marx OPlER San Luis Obispo City Pianning Commission 78VIA TELECOPIEF, C/o City of San Luis Obispo 1-7173 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �E Planning Commission Meeting - April 2Z 1998 1234 Laurel Lane, San Luis Obispo Dear Ms. Mam As i have looked around the bowling alley these past few months, after being told that Laurel Bowl had been sold and would more than Ifty be torn down, I cannot help but wonder If the buyers really know what it is they have purchased. If the walls of Laurel Bowl could talk they would tell unbelievable stories. They would tell of the 5enlor Citizens, many in their 7079 and 80's, who take pride in the fact that they are able to participate in a "sport." They would tell of the handicapped adults who bowl in a league on Saturday afternoon.and of the pride and joy that is felt by them because they too are able to participate in a "sport." Through these walls you can hoar the laughter of children at birthday parties. You can hear screams of delight as children watch the ball knock down even one pin. You would see parents who were able to sit back. relax and enjoy their child special day because, quite simply, TIPPY the Clown was a perfect hostess. The walls would tell you of.the junior bowlers, who down through the years have set goals and standards for themselves and taken pride In their achievements. They would tell you of the dreams that have been born, particularly of becoming a professlanal bowler. Fight years ago, at the age of 5, my daughter.Chelsey, picked up a bowling ball for the first time. She fell in love with the Sport. and began to take bowling very seriously. The wails would tell you of the time she,at the age of nine. bowled well enough to be named one o�o� Tanning Commision Meeting Subject: Planning Commision Meeting Date: Wed,22 Apr 1998 12:07:41 -0700 From: Peter Meertens<Meertens@fletchfix.net> To: ipslocdd@slonet.org attn: Peggy Mandeville Dear Planning Commition, I live in the neighborhood behind Sinshiemer Park and I am oppossed to the rezoning of the Laurel Bowl site. I believe the community would be better served if the site remained zoned as neighborhood commercial. There are a substantial number of people living near Laurel Lane and there are not alot of businesses to serve them. We make several trips a day by car out of the neighborhood to shop, eat out, and do other types of business. The site should be able to support the types of businesses that can go in residenial commercial zoning. There are already enough care facilities in the neighborhood. The traffic on heavely travelled Johnson Ave. , Orcutt Rd. , and Broad St. could be reduced if we could do business locally. Thank You for listening to my concerns. Peter Meertens Ph 541-1184 e-mail meertens@fix.net of 1 4/27/98 1:35 PN 04/22/1998 04:35 8052271574 STAPLES '02 PAGE 02 4L ASIMETiQNR`S� SOCiA April 15. 1998 Hamish Marshall, Project Manager The Village at Sydney Creek clo Smith & Company . Dear Mr. Marshall: The Santa Barbara Alzheimer's Association serves Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. We are one of 220 chapters across the United States affiliated with the National AiTbeimees;Association. our Association is happy to encourage thedevelopment of quality residential facilities designed especially to serve the needs of those who have Alzheimer's disease or related dementias. Family members a pprcciate the opportunity for safe, secure and emotionally enriches dementia-care community settings to be available for their loved ones if a placement need arises. The number of those who will be diagnosed with Alzheimer's during the first thirty years of the 21st Century is expected to grow from the current 4,000,000 to 14.,000,000. While some patients can remain at home to be cared for by family. others will benefit from living in a care facility. San Luis Obispo City and County can best prepare for.the needs of its senior papulation as the new century begins, by seeing that a.variety of care settings cru available. Residential Care Facilities (RCFs) for those who have hpcnme frail and need assistance with activities of daily living are more plentiW at the present time in SLO County. Facilities for those who have developed dementia whether due to Alzheimefs or a related brain (syndrome are badly needed. Indeed some local &rnilies have had to make out-of-area placements for their loved ones. The City can help to remedy this situation by encouraging the development of facilities like the proposed The Village at Sydney Creek. Sincerely, Dianne TiIDmAn Santa Barbara Alzheimeeu Association Special Projects Coordinator WorkMome Phone (805) 287-8288 Fax (805) 23&1722 ALZHFIMFR:R 11I.SEASE AND RELATED DISORDERS ASSOCIATION OF SANTA BARBARA,INC. 2024 De sVma Sm Sams Hafa,CA 99105-3814 M X3-0020/FAX(805)6821911 o2A �/ Attachment 6 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 22, 1998 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:10 p.m. on Wednesday, April 22, 1998, in Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners John Ewan, Paul Ready, Jan Howell Marx, David Jeffrey, John Ashbaugh(Arriving at 9:13 p.m.), and Chairman Charles Senn Absent: Mary Whittlesey Staff Present: Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand, Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Parks Recreation Director Paul Le Sage, Long Range Planning Manager John Mandeville, and Associate Planners Peggy Mandeville and Glen Matteson. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as amended. Item#5 was heard after Item#2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 11, 1997, were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no public comments. Jg0 Draft Planning Commiasion Minutes April 22, 1998 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1234 Laurel Lane: ER. A and GP/R 11-98: Request for review of proposed change to the Land Use Element map designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential and rezoning from C-N to R-4, review of initial study and approve a use permit for a residential care facility for property located on the northwest corner of Southwood Drive and Laurel Lane; Smith and Company, applicant. Chairman Senn refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest. Commissioner Ready was designated as acting chairman. Associate Planner Mandeville presented the staff report and recommended (1) reviewing the initial study of environmental impact and recommending approval of the amendments to the City Council with the addition of the"Special Considerations" Overlay Zone based on findings and (2) approval of the use permit for a residential care facility subject to final City Council approval of the zone change from C-N to R-4-S. Commissioner Marx commented the only impact noted in the negative declaration is to air quality. Associate Planner Mandeville stated the air quality would be impacted during construction only. Traffic will be decreased from the current use. Commissioner Ewan asked the ownership of the property to the west. Associate Planner Mandeville stated it also belongs to this property owner. They are requesting a lot line adjustment. Acting Chairman Ready asked if approval of the use permit would indicate approval of the plans accompanying the staff report. Associate Planner Mandeville replied no, architecture and site design will go before the ARC for review/approval. Acting Chairman Ready asked if the Commission has authority to dictate the occupancy. Associate Planner Mandeville stated the ARC reviews the design which would include parking for the use. This site can accommodate parking for 63 beds/patients. The Commission can review the overall use and impacts of the number of persons at the site. There were no further commentslquestions and the public comment session was opened. 2 Draft Planning Commiba,on Minutes April 22, 1998 Page 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Hamish Marshall, project representative, stated this will be a state of the art facility. He explained the design as being in three parts that can provide three levels of care. This neighborhood is supplied with enough C-N and the R-4 zoning is appropriate. He explained the scarcity and need of Alzheimer's facilities in our county. Commissioner Marx asked how the project design will address patient wandering. Mr. Marshall stated this is an area which needs to be discussed with the Fire Department They would prefer a wandering facility within the proposed pod system. Jack Widder, project representative, develops and operates assisted living buildings. He explained Alzheimer's care and described their proposed pod system. Commissioner Marx asked how patient wandering could impact the neighborhood. Mr. Widder stated they will have delayed egress around three courtyards with wandering paths. They hope to have a secured perimeter, but plans need to be discussed with the Fire Department because security is one of their biggest concerns. Elaine Defassi, 191 Stewart, Cambria, owns/operates a residential care facility in Cambria and expressed concern over untruths in a recent newspaper article regarding this project and area elder care. She explained the difficulties for families who have to place loved ones outside the county. There are 30 residential care homes.on the Ombudsman list for senior/Alzheimer's care. Patient wandering is a major concern. Michael Ellison, 9600 Los Robles (Inaudible), Atascadero, expressed concern over untruths in the recent newspaper article regarding this project and area elder care. There are six facilities in this community that care specifically for Alzheimer's patients. He operates a secured facility licensed by the state and has beds available. Mr. Marshall apologized for the misstatements in the newspaper and thanked and encouraged the other public speakers. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Marx asked if the applicants would have to come back before the Commission if they decided they wanted to build another kind of high density residential/student housing. 3 30 Draft Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1998 Page 4 Associate Planner Mandeville stated the purposed of the Special Considerations Overlay Zone is to require a discretionary review of any use. Any other use would require another public hearing. Commissioner Marx favors the Special Overlay Zone for this project. Commissioner Jeffrey is concerned about patient wandering. He asked for further applicant response. Mr. Widder stated his group manages facilities in high-risk areas that do not have secured perimeters. There are many options available to address wandering and safety concerns. He described different security and delayed egress systems. They would prefer a secured perimeter, but it's too soon to know if this is possible. Commissioners Marx and Ready suggested a condition requiring adequate precautionary security arrangements or controls to prevent the prospect of wandering within the surrounding neighborhood and adjoining streets within the confines of the building and fire codes. Commissioner Ewan moved to recommend approval of the request to amend the Land Use Element map designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jeffrey. AYES: Commissioners Ewan,Jeffrey, Marx, and Acting Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: Chairman Senn The motion carried 4-0. Chairman Senn refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest and Commissioners Whittlesey and Ashbaugh were absent. Commissioner Jeffrey moved to recommend Council adoption of the Negative Declaration and rezone the property from C-N to R-4 with the S Overlay, subject to the findings as outlined by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ewan AYES: Commissioners Jeffrey, Ewan, Marx, and Acting Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: Chairman Senn and Commissioner Ashbaugh 4 �A�3/ Draft Planning Commisaxon Minutes - April 22, 1998 Page 5 The motion carried 40. Chairman Senn refrained from participation due to potential conflict of interest and Commissioners Ashbaugh and Whittlesey were absent. Commissioner Marx moved to approve the use permit for a residential care facility for 60 residents based on the recommendations on Page 6 of the staff report and the condition that the facility maintains adequate precautionary or security arrangements or controls to prevent the prospect of wandering within the surrounding neighborhood and adjoining streets consistent with building and fire codes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jeffrey. The Commission discussed occupancy,parking, and land use issues. Commissioner Marx amended the motion to allow no more than 65 residents. Commissioner Jeffrey accepted the amendment. AYES: Commissioners Marx, Jeffrey, Ewan, and Acting Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: Chairman Senn The motion carried 40. Chairman Senn refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest and Commissioners Ashbaugh and Whittlesey were absent. 2. 736 and 750 Orcutt Road: A 110-95: Review of conditions of an approved use permit relating to restroom facilities for the homeless shelter, C-S Zone; Housing Authority,applicant. Chairman Senn refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest. Commissioner Ready was designated acting chairman. 5 CO 3�- Peggy Mandeville Presenting Planner Tentative ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Regular Meeting Council Hearing Room City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 May 18, 1998 Monday 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commrs. Curtis Illingworth, Alice Loh, Lance Parker, Mark Rawson, Ron Regier, Charles Stevenson,and Chairperson Jim Aiken. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may add or delete items or modify order to the items. MINUTES: Minutes of April 6, 1998. Amend or approve. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to the staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may b scheduled for a future meeting. PLEASE NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at,or prior to,the public hearing. PROJECT(S): 1. 698 Marsh Street: ARC 58-98: Architectural review of a new internally illuminated cabinet sign and modification to a non-conforming internally illuminated monument sign in exception to the City's Sign Regulations; C-C zone;Travel Time, Ernest Petrich, applicant (30 Minutes) Peggy Mandeville COMMENT& DISCUSSION: 2. Staff �� -33 Attachment 9 'iII��II��[IIDIII����;���������IIIIIIIIIIII� I� � city of sAn tuis omspo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ER 11-98 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title:.; SLO Alzheimer Facility 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: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner (805) 781-7175 4. Project Location: 1234 Laurel Lane 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Smith and-Company 555 Ramona Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial 7. Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial © The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities h��� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. c 8. Description of the Project: The City has received an application to redevelop the existing Laurel Bowl bowling alley into a 43-room (maximum 60 persons) facility for the care of persons with"Alzheimers/dementia. The proposal entails the interior remodel of the 24,000 s.f. bowling alley and construction of a 13,000 s.f. single story addition. The existing project access, perimeter landscaping and a portion of the parking area are to remain. 9. Project Entitlements Requested: The applicant has applied for environmental review, General Plan amendment, rezone, lot line adjustment, administrative use permit to allow the residential care facility use in the R-4 zone, and architectural review for the design of the residential care facility. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is located-on the northwest corner of Southwood Drive and Laurel Lane. It is presently developed with a bowling alley, restaurant and surface parking lot. Surrounding land uses include a residential care facility, office and fire station to the general north, neighborhood commercial shopping center to the general east, single and multi-family residential to the general south, and light industrial to the west. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): State approval/licensing for residential care facility. 2 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. Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance X Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service 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 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 a attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be X prepared. I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at leasi one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis a 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 �A-3G 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 o mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose upon the proposed project. S' 'ature' 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 CEOA 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. 4 J '� / Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiall P,,_.itially Less Than No Y Significant Significant Impact ER 11-98, SLO Alzheimer Facility t Isssues Sisues Unless Impact mitigation Page 5 incorporated 1.. LAND USE AND.PLANNING Would the proposal: a) : Conflict with general plan designation.or ionirig? 1,2 X b) ._.Conflict with applicable environmental .plans or policies, X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?.. c)= Be incompatible with existing land use in the -vicinity?.. X d) Affect.agricultural resources :or operations (e.g...impact to soils-or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible. land X. uses? e) . Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an .established community (including . a low-income or X minority community)? Through the required administrative use permit and architectural review applications, the project's density will be evaluated in terms of its compliance with ordinance standards, efficiency of design and provision of usable open space. The existing planning review process for the project can adequately evaluate the project's parking needs. No further mitigation measures are necessary. The applicant is requesting a General Plan amendment and rezone to redevelop the neighborhood commercial property as a residential care facility. With approval of these requests the project will be consistent with the adopted General Plan and zoning. 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, sing) parents, disabled persons,those desiring congregate or co-housing lifestyles;the elderly, students, and the homeless. The project is consistent with this policy as it provides congregate housing and a range of housing choice for the elderly. 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 facilities shout be compatible with any nearby, lower density development. A. Architectural Character New buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute t neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety. The new proposed residential care facility will have one level and a maximum height of 32 feet tall which i compatible with other buildings constructed in the area. The maximum height limitation in the R-4 zone i 35 feet. The proposed building, located on the westerly property line will be taller than the single story structures to the south, however given the location of the new structure and grade changes, it will only impact solar access on site and will not impact adjacent properties. Policy 2.12.12, Residential Project Objectives Residential projects should provide: A. Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project; 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia►► Putent Iy Less Than No Y Significant Significant Impact ER 11-98, SLO Alzheimer Facility t Issues Unless Impact smitigation Page 7 Incorporated c) Displace existing housing, _ especially affordable X housing? The applicant proposes to convert an existing bowling alley into a residential care facility for residents with alzheimers/dementia. - According to the City's Housing Element, the percentage of seniors (over 65 years of age) has increase 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 This facility therefore fulfills a community need for special needs housing. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 5 X b) Seismic ground shaking? 6 X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 6 X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? . X e) Landslides or mudflows? 6 X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 6 X conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? 6 X h) Expansive soils? 6 X i) Unique geologic or physical features? 6 X The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong group shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed i 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 grafi sand) which is caused by shock or strain (such as an earthquake), and results in a temporary transformatio 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. As part of the building permit application, a detailed soils engineering report needs to be submitted for Citi review in order to ensure construction consistent with adopted building code standards. The report shal consider special grading and construction techniques necessary to address the potential for liquefaction identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation recommendations.to ensure against unstable soi conditions. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineerin report. No further mitigation is required. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the -2 X rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X such as flooding? 7 c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X surface water quality (e.g. temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 7 ��3g Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiall lou cntially Las Than No Y Significant Significant Impact ER 11-98, SLO Alzheimer Facility Significan Unless impact tlssua mitigation Page 6 Incorporated B. Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive ligh and sunshine; C. Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable wit 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 setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through them at regula intervals, and planting.) I. Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards alon streets, and entryways facing public walkways. J. Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as recommended by the City Fire Department. Policy 2.4.8, High-Density Residential: Development should be primarily attached dwellings in two- or three- story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. Other uses whicin are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such asgrouo housing, parks, schools, and churches, may be permitted. Such development is appropriate near the college campus, the downtown core, an major concentrations of employment. The project which provides group housing in a remodeled and new single-level building is consistent wit 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 no 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. The project site is proposed to be zoned R-4 which allows residential care facilities with the Director' approval of an administrative use permit. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING -...Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?.:>_: , ... - X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e g: through projects in an undeveloped area X .or major infrastructure?. 6 o!A-ff0 Issues-and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiall Potentially Less Than No y Significant Significant Impact ER 11-98, SLO Alzheimer FacilitysissiUnless Impact t Issueess mitigation Page 13 Incorporated or other recreational facilities? X b) Affect.existing recreational opportunities? X The change in occupancy to a residential care facility will not increase the demand for neighborhood o regional parks or other recreational facilities. With the change in occupancy, the applicant is proposing t add activity rooms for use by the residents. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the X quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause,a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant oranimal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for.all the issue area checked in the table on page 3. X b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- goals?to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? In this case,-short- and long-term environmental goals are the same. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ('Cumulatively X considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) The impacts identified in this initial study are in general specific to this project and would not be categorize as cumulatively significant. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? With incorporation of mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts o humans. 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,.program.EIR, or other CEQA process, one o more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier.EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c).(3 (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. All analysis of environmental impacts associated with this project were included in this study, rather than relying on previous analyses. b) Impacts adequately.address ed. Identify which effects from the abovechecklistwere.:within the scop of and adequately analyzed in an earlierdocument pursuant' .:to applicable legal standards, and stat whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based'.on the ea.dier analysis. 13 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiall Potentially Less Than No y Significant Significant Impact ER 11-98, SLO Alzheimer Facility tt Issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 8 Incorporated movements? X f) Change in the quantity of ground waters,.either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception` of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through X substantial loss of groundwater recharge.capability? g)..Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?. X h) Impacts.to groundwater quality? X i) Substantial reduction in the amount of'.groundwater: X� otherwise available for public water supplies? Drainage The project will decrease the amount of impervious surfaces on the site since the area of the site where the new building and landscaping is proposed is currently a paved parking lot. Land Use Element Policy 6.4. encourages the use of porous paving, landscaping, or other design elements to reduce surface water runo 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 th grading and landscaping plans. No further mitigation is required. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an X existing or projected air quality violation.(Compliance 8,9 with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectionable odors? X The project as designed, incorporates many of the site design features commonly required as air pollutio mitigation measures for projects including: a. bicycle parking b. on-site food facilities 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 " 1. 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 o street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall remain i effect during all phases of project construction: a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of all actio 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 site; and 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sou.-es Sources Potential] F Tally Less Than No y Significant Significant Impact iifican ER 11-98, SLO Alzheimer Facility Slssues mtnlesstigation Impart Page 9 Incorporated g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work. 6.. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Would the proposal result in: a). Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 10 - X b) Hazards to safety.from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X (e.g. farm equipment)!? c) Inadequate emergency:access or access to nearby X. uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X e) Hazards or barriers'for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?. X g) Rail, .waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)? X Trio Generation The residential care facility, as proposed, will generate fewer vehicle trips per day than the existing bowling alley facility. The reason for this is that the daily trip ends for congregate care housing are much lower than other types of uses. Therefore, the conversion to residential care facility will not have a negative impact on traffic. In summary,the trip generation is estimated as follows: xueng sc Potential Use Q Proposed Use Potential Use Neighborhood Neighborhood Congregate Care/ R4 Q 24 Units/Acre Commercial Commercial Elderly Housing (38 units•6.63 Bowling Alley assumed 50% trips/du) parcel coverage 792 trips per 2332 trips per 148 trips per 252 trips per weekday weekday weekday weekday On-Site Parking Through the required administrative use permit and architectural review applications, the project's parkin will be evaluated in terms of its compliance with ordinance standards, efficiency of design and landscaping No further mitigation is necessary. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants,fish, insects,' 11 X animals or birds)? . b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? X d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? 12 X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X The City's Informational Map Atlas indicates there are no sensitive plant or animal species on the site. Additionally, there are no heritage trees on the site. 9 �-�f3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiate Potentially Less Than No y Significant Significant Impact ER 11-98, SLO Alzheimer Facility Signifrcan Unless Impact tissues mitigation Page 10 Incorporated S. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the-oroposak a). Conflict with adopted energy conservation.plans?,:. ;': 2 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and =:J.. X inefficient manner? 2 c). Result in the loss of availability of a known.mineral resource.that would be of future value to.the region X and the residents of the State? s. The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventiona energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design an orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energ conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code which establishes energ conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Buildings proposed as part of the project must meet those standards. In response to this requirement, skylights have been incorporated int the project design. 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 energ 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 i recommended: Mitigation Measure 2. 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. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous . substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, X chemicals or radiation)? b) .Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?..- X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health . hazard? X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential-..> health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? X- 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? r 13 X b) Exposure of people to 'unacceptable.'noise levels,as. X defined by-the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element? 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiall Potentially Less Than No y Significant Significant Impact Significan Unless Impact ER 11-98, SLO Alzheimer Facility tissues mitigation Page 11 Incorporated The Noise Contour Map included in the Noise Element shows existing noise.levels at the site to be 60-65 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-nursin home uses. Complying noise levels for interior spaces can be achieved through standard building techniques. Exterio noise levels will also comply with accepted levels because fewer cars will be driven to the site and 4h outdoor area has been located within the interior of the lot, away fromSouthwood Drive and Laurel Lane. No further mitigation is necessary. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new:or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X The Fire Department has reviewed the project and noted a fire flow deficiency in the public water system As a result, the scope of this project has been modified to include all necessary mitigation measures t eliminate the fire flow deficiency before any City approvals. No further mitigation is necessary/ 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? 13 X g) Local or regional water supplies? 2 X Solid Waste Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 IAB939) shows that Californian 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 capaci by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills b 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 b submitted with the building permit application. The project should include facilities for both interior an exterior recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reductio and Recycling Element. Mitigation Measure 3. The new residential care facility shall incorporate facilities for on-site recycling. In addition, sit development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials such a concrete, drywall, wood, and metals from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval b 11 cot 40r Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potendall Potentially Less Than No y Significant Significant Impact Significan Unless Impact ER 11-98, SLO Alzheimer Facility [Issues mitigation Page 12 Incorporated the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. Water The city's water supply is limited. Supplies available for new development are restricted and only available through retrofitting. Currently, the City requires all development that will increase water use to obtain water allocation. The most reliable way to obtain such an allocation is to retrofit existing plumbing fixture inside city limits, with the:goal of saving twice as much water as the new development is likely to use. Compliance with the provisions of the Water Allocation Regulations and the water impact fee program i adequate to mitigate the effects of increased water demand. No further mitigation is necessary. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: . a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 2 X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 2 X c) Create light or glare?. X The building design will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. This review will ensure that the design is acceptable aesthetically. The parking lot located off of Laurel Lane will be reduced in size with development of the new residentia care facility. Parking spaces will be generally screened from street views given their location behind the trash enclosure and entry landscaping. However, with project development and upgrades to site features there is the potential for glare from parking lot lighting to impact the adjacent property to the west. Mitigation Measure 4. Parking lot lighting shall be designed to be directed downward and not cast glare onto adjacen 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. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? 14 X c) Affect historical resources? 14 X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X potential impact area? The City's archaeological guidelines state that a site does not require archaeological or historical assessme if it is a parcel of less than one acre, not in a"sensitive area', which the Director determines would have Tittle or no potential to affect adversely archaeological resources. Although no finds were expected or mad during the construction of the residential care facility, a process should be in place in the unlikely event tha a resource is found during the construction. Mitigation Measures: 5. If an archaeological or historical find is made during the construction of this project, all work shall cease until an archaeologist documents the find. 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. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 12 Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures: For effects that are "Less than Significant with,Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent t which they address site specific conditions of the project.. Not applicable. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. :. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1,21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093;321094, 21151; Sundstroin v. County of Mendocino; 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors,: 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 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 Map (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: 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. . 14 ��� 2. 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. 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. 3. Mitigation Measure: The new assisted care facility shall incorporate facilities for recycling. In addition, site. development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials such as concrete, drywall, wood, and metals from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. 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. 4. 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 Program: Parking lot righting shall be reviewed and monitored through the review of plans during architectural review and building permit plan check. 5. Mitigation Measure If an archaeological or historical find is made during the construction of this project, all work shall cease until an archaeologist documents the find. 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. I hereby agree to the mitigation measures and monitoring program outlined above. Applicant Date 15 70