HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/1999, 1 - APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AT THE EASTERLY END OF PISMO AND BUCHON STREETS, ADJACENT TO THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; 1330 AND 1363 PISMO STREET. REVIUD)
council M�,t.9-7-99
ac Enna aEpopt
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
G
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Devell ent Directors
Prepared By: John Shoals, Associate Planne;;
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION TO
APPROVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AT THE EASTERLY
END OF PISMO AND BUCHON STREETS, ADJACENT TO THE UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; 1330 AND 1363 PISMO STREET.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and approving a mitigated negative declaration and the
project based on findings and subject to the conditions and code requirements listed in Draft
Resolution"A."
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The item before the City Council is an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's (ARC)
decision to approve a multifamily housing project at the end of Pacific and Pismo Streets,
adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (see a vicinity map in the ARC staff reports).
Specifically,the proposed project involves the development of a 0.86-acre site with an affordable
multifamily housing project consisting of 11 apartments (with a density equivalent of 13 units) in
four residential structures, a laundry/utility building, parking, a small outdoor play area,
landscaping and other site improvements. Primary access to the site will be a driveway from
Pismo Street. The applicant is proposing to abandon a portion of Buchon Street and to limit
vehicular access from this street to emergency purposes. only. A more detailed project
description is in the ARC staff report(Attachments 8).
ARC Actions
This project was initially reviewed by the ARC on May 17, 1999. At that public hearing, the
Commission granted the project schematic approval with directions on site design, building mass
and orientation, building architecture, building colors, landscaping, parking, pedestrian traffic
and other project-details including lighting, signage, trash enclosure design and open space.
In July of 1999, the project was revised to address ARC's concerns. The revised project was
reviewed by the ARC on August 2, 1999. After a lengthy discussion and extensive public
testimony, the ARC on a 3-1-3 vote (Commr. Lopes voting no, Commrs. Howard and Parker
were absent, and Commr. Rawson had to refrain due to a potential conflict of interest) approved
the mitigated negative declaration and granted final approval to the project with findings and
modified conditions. Discussion focused on: site design, density, building architecture,
neighborhood compatibility (i.e., privacy, building mass and scale), traffic/circulation, parking,
1-1
Council Agenda Report, 11-99(Housing Authority)
Page 2
pedestrian traffic and train noise. ARC minutes are included as Attachment 7.
The ARC felt that the revised project plans adequately addressed the Commission's concerns and
directions. In addition, the Commission approved the mitigated negative declaration finding that
it adequately addressed potential project impacts and complied with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
Neighbors' Appeals
Ms. Evelyn Talmadge filed an appeal on August 4,.1999 (see Attachment.3). Ms. Talmadge is
concerned with neighborhood parking and traffic accidents on the nearby segment of Johnson
Avenue. Her comments are contained in the minutes from the May 17"i and August 2"d meetings
(see Attachments 7).
Mr. Rick Hamlin filed an appeal on August 10, 1999. Mr. Hamlin feels that the ARC action is
inconsistent with the ARC procedures and criteria that require those projects under ARC review
to be designed to minimize interference with the neighbor's privacy, quiet and views. In his
opinion, the site plan unnecessarily places a three-unit two-story structure, up against the rear
property lines of Pismo Street lots causing interference with the privacy, quiet and views of those
lots. He feels that there are alternative site plans that do not create the potential for nearly the
same degree of interference. A copy of Mr. Hamlin's appeal letter and previous correspondence
to the City Council and ARC are included as Attachment 4.
Mr. Peter Sterios, representing the Pismo/Johnson Neighborhood Association (PJNA), filed an
appeal on August 11, 1999, see Attachment 5. The PJNA does not feel that the project is
compatible with the existing neighborhood which consists primarily of single-story older homes
on R-2 zoned lots. They have expressed concerns with: site density, rear yard setbacks, traffic,
school bus circulation/pedestrian traffic across Johnson Avenue, and parking.
The PJNA feels that: 1) the project is too dense and should be reduced from 13 to 12 units; 2) the
three-unit building on Pismo Street should be a two-unit building and rotated to be perpendicular
to the street consistent with the other homes on Pismo Street; 3) the project will create problems
with privacy because it places two-story structures next to the existing one-story homes and
yards; 4) the rear elevations of the two-story buildings are "devoid of any significant
architectural features;" 5) pedestrian access, from the Buchon Street side of the project, should be
restricted because a majority of the pedestrians (adults and school children) will use the Buchon
Street/Johnson Avenue intersection to access bus stops, Scolari's market and downtown; and 6)
the project will exacerbate an existing parking problem in the neighborhood because there is
shortage of parking in the neighborhood, housing occupied by very low or low-income
housesholds is allowed to have fewer parking spaces than a typical multi-family development
and the irregular shape of the lot does not allow for on-street parking which is commonly used
for guest or overflow parking.
1-2
Council Agenda Report,AkC 11-99(Housing Authority)
Page 3
Staff Analysis:
Density
The ARC expressed concerns with the project density, but found that the proposed project (with
a 25% density bonus) complies with the maximum density allowed by the City's General Plan.
It should also be noted that the ARC does not have the authority to require the site be developed
at a lower density. City Council does has the authority to require the project be developed at a
lower density provided the state required findings can be made. Section 65589.5J of the
California Government Code, states:
"When a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable
general plan, zoning, and development policies. in effect at the time that the
housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the
local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the
condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall
base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon
written findings support by substantial evidence on the record that both of the
following conditions exist:
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
condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As based on this
paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact means a significant, unavoidable impact,
as provided in the written.standards, policies, or conditions.
2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact
identified pursuant to paragraph (1) other than the disapproval of the housing
development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density. "
It is staff's opinion; these findings cannot be made in support of approving the project with the
condition that it be developed at a lower density.
Although the three-unit building on Pismo Street was not rotated to be square (or perpendicular)
to the .street, the ARC decided that it was not a mandate and did not have a problem with the
orientation of the building.
Privacy, Quiet and Views (Rear Yard Setbacks)
There was extensive discussion on minimizing interference with the privacy, quiet and views of
the neighbors. Specifically, as part of the ARC's schematic approval of the project, the ARC
directed the applicant to: explore using an alternative site design placing the units closer to the
railroad tracks with the driveway and parking area closer to the existing residences; consider re-
positioning the buildings so that openings do not face the existing residences and the noise
1-3
Council Agenda Report,, 11-99(Housing Authority)
Page 4
source(railroad), and so there is less interference with viewsheds; break-up and offset the units
to reduce the scale and mass of the buildings. In response to the ARC direction, the applicant
modified the original site design leaving the buildings and parking in the same general
configuration, with the following changes: the largest building (a five-unit building) was divided
into two smaller buildings; the rear yards of the. buildings closest to the existing residences were
increased by moving the buildings farther away from the residences; the one-story utility/laundry
building was relocated to between the two-story structures and next to the centrally-located open
space area; and the common open space (playground area) was enlarged.
It is staff s opinion that the ARC's decision is consistent with the adopted ARC Guidelines in
that the revised project significantly reduces impacts to the neighbor's privacy, quiet and views.
It should also be noted that the project fully complies with the R-2 zone standards for building
height, building setback, lot coverage and parking. While there may be other design alternatives,
the ARC felt that the revised project design adequately addresses these issues.
Parking
City Zoning.Regulations state:
"Housing occupied exclusively by very low or low-income households, as defined
by the State, may provide one car and one bicycle space per dwelling unit. "
The project complies with the City's parking requirements. The affordable housing project has a
parking requirement of 13 car spaces and is providing 15 spaces. It should be noted that the
original project design showed 17 car spaces. The number of spaces was reduced down to 15
spaces at the suggestion of the ARC to create more design flexibility so that the buildings could
be reduced in size and oriented to minimize privacy, noise and viewshed impacts. At the August
2nd meeting, the ARC encouraged the applicant to explore the possibility of providing two
additional spaces (a total of 17 spaces) to accommodate guest and overflow parking.. It should be
noted that on-street parking spaces are not considered in determining if a project meets its
parking requirement.
Applicant's Appeal
Mr. George Moylan, Housing Authority, filed an appeal on August 11, 1999 (Attachment 6).. He
is asking the City Council to delete condition of approval no. 3. This condition requires that the
three-unit building on Pismo Street be rotated to be square to the street and designed to comply
with City street.yard requirements and the Noise Element standards.
At the May 17`h meeting, the ARC directed the applicant to rotate this building to be square with
the street. In reviewing the revised project plans, staff determined that the plans did not comply
with this ARC direction and recommended that this be a condition of approval. A majority of
the ARC did not feel that it was necessary to rotate the building. This condition, however, was
not deleted from the motion or the final action approving the project.
1-4
Council Agenda Report,,,- _ 11-99(Housing Authority)
Page 5
Staff Analysis:
In staff's opinion, it was not the intention of the ARC to have the applicant rotate the building to
be perpendicular to the street. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council delete this
condition.
CONCURRENCES
Concerns of other departments have either been addressed with design changes or have been
incorporated as conditions of approval.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Approval or denial of the project will have no direct effect on the City's funds. The City of San
Luis Obispo allocated $300,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds to this project
for property acquisition.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may approve the appeal, thereby disapproving the project design and improvements
to the site. The Council should make specific findings for this denial.
The Council may approve the appeal by requiring the project be re-designed to locate the
buildings farther away from the existing homes and closer to the railroad right-of-way. If such
an action is taken, the final design may be to the approval of the Community Development
Director or the Architectural Review Commission.
The Council may deny the appeals, but modify conditions of approval.
The Council may continue action on the project. Direction should be given to the applicant and
staff.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Draft Resolution "A"- Deny Appeal
Attachment 2 - Draft Resolution `B"- Uphold Appeal
Attachment 3 - Evelyn Talmadge Appeal Letter
Attachment 4 - Rick Hamlin Appeal Letter and Previous Communications
Attachment 5 - Peter Sterios Appeal Letter
Attachment 6 - George Moylan Appeal Letter
Attachment 7 - Minutes from the ARC meeting of May 17 and August 2, 1999
Attachment 8 - ARC Staff Report, dated August 2, 1999
JShoals/CC/ARC11-99(Housing Authority)
1-5
Attachment 1
Draft Resolution"A"
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION'S DECISION, THEREBY APPROVING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECT AT 1330 AND 1363 PISMO STREET,
(ER11-99 AND ARC 11-99)
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo's Architectural Review Commission held a
special meeting on May 17, 1999 and a regular meeting on August 2, 1999, to consider
architectural and environmental review of an 11-apartment (13 density equivalent units per City
Code) multifamily housing project ARC 11-99 and ER 11-99; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission on August 2, 1999 approved ER-11-
99 and ARC-11-99 with findings and subject to conditions and code requirements; and
WHEREAS, Evelyn Talmadge, Rick Hamlin, Peter Sterios and George Moylan filed
appeals of that action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, September 7, 1999, for the
purpose of considering the appeals to the Architectural Review Commission action on the
project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony of the applicant, appellants,
interested parties, the records of the Architectural Review Commission hearings and actions, and
the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact, with mitigation, as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Architectural
Review Commission;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the project's Negative Declaration with
mitigation adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed
project, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council adopts said
Negative Declaration and hereby incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project:
1. The applicant shall submit a detailed soils engineering report as part of the building permit
application. The soils report shall consider special grading and construction techniques
necessary to address the potential hazards associated with the underlying sub-strata. The
report shall identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation recommendations to
1-6
Resolution No. (19;. emeries)
Page 2
insure against unstable soil conditions. Grading and building must be designed and
performed in compliance with the soils engineering report.
2. Future site development shall incorporate the following as feasible:
a) Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
b) Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
c) Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
3. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site 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 plans must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director prior to
building permit issuance.
SECTION 2. Findines. That this Council, after consideration of architectural review permit
application ARC-]1-99, the Commission's decision, staff recommendation, public testimony,
and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed project, with the recommended conditions and modifications, complies with
property development standards for the R-2 zone.
2. The proposed scale and design of the buildings will be compatible with surrounding
residential uses.
3. The proposed project will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the persons
living or working in the vicinity because it is a small residential project that has been
designed in a way that minimizes any impacts to adjacent land uses.
SECTION 3. Appeal Denial. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action
approving the project is hereby denied, and the Architectural Review Commission's action
is upheld subject to the following modified conditions and code requirements:
Conditions
1. Final project design and construction drawing shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans, as amended and approved by the ARC.
2. Project details including: final landscape plans, wall and parking lot lighting, signage, and
trash enclosure details shall return to Planning staff for review and approval at the time that
working drawings are submitted for a building permit.
3. A lot-line adjustment or lot merger is required to eliminate existing property lines through
proposed structures. etc.
1-7
tt
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 3
4. A separate application must. be submitted for the.proposed abandonment of a portion of
- Buchon Street. Any abandonment shall first consider .the tum-around needs and include
reservation of that portion necessary for a pedestrian/bicycle connection to the UPRR (See
conditions under Transportation). Explore the.feasibility of placing on-street parking spaces
as part of the abandonment process.
5. The termination of Buchon Street must include provisions for a tum-around, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Additional public right-of-way may be needed
as well as the relocation of proposed trash receptacles to accommodate an acceptable turn-
around.
6.. The applicant shall dedicate an easement between the terminus of Buchon Street and the
UPRR right-of-way line, for public pedestrian and bicycle path needs, to the satisfaction of
the.Director of Public Works.
7. Bicycle Parking. The applicant. shall provide short- and long-term parking for bicycles
consistent with standards contained in the Bicycle Transportation Plan, to the approval of the
Transportation Staff.
8. Railroad Recreational Trail Connection. As part of the design of this project, the applicant
shall work with the Public Works staff to design a Class I bicycle path connection between
the east end of Buchon Street and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The design of this
connection shall be staked in the field and reflected on the project's construction documents.
The bike path connection shall align with the existing service road that climbs the bank and
connects to the flatter portions of Union Pacific's right-of-way.
The design of this bicycle path connection shall be the basis for describing a perpetual public
access easement through the street area proposed to be abandoned and across the adjoining
small triangular portion of the project site (needed to complete the connection to UP's right-
of-way). Both easement areas shall be of sufficient width to accommodate a 3.7 meter (12
foot) paved bicycle path, with a 600 mm (2 foot) clear shoulders on each side (total minimum
of 4.9 meters).
To the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, the applicant shall construct the small
segment of the bicycle path connection from the east end of Buchon Street or Pismo Street
pavement to the project's eastern property boundary.
9. Johnson-Pismo Street Intersection Improvements. The applicant shall contribute its pro rata
share towards the cost of any future modifications to the Pismo-Johnson Intersection that the
City determines are necessary to address traffic management or neighborhood traffic
management (NTM) issues associated with residential areas east of Johnson Avenue,
between Johnson and the Union Pacific Railroad. City staff's recommendation at this time is
that a traffic signal should not be installed.
10. A street light shall be added at the end of Pismo Street near the project driveway area.
1=8
Resolution No. (I Aries) J
Page 4
11. Consider adding a laundry room near the three-unit building at Pismo Street.
12. The Fire Department explore the need for an emergency turn-around at the end of Pismo
-Street.
Code Reguirements:
1. The subject property is located the "13" flood zone. .Therefore, all new structures shall.have
the finished floouraised at least one foot above the highest grade adjacent to the building
footprint..
2 Frontage improvement shall be installed in accordance with current City standards.
3. Street trees shall be planted in accordance with City standards and to the satisfaction of the
City Arborist.
4. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building,permit.
5.. Water and wastewater impact fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of a building
permit..
6. A water allocation is required, due.to the additional units. Currently, a water allocation can
only be obtained through the water retrofit program. 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 781-1258.
7. At the time building permits are issued, Water and Wastewater Impact Fees will be
charged, based on the number of. units. The cost of developing an allocation through
retrofit could offset a portion of the required Water Impact Fee according to appropriate
City policies.
8. The design of water and wastewater facilities shall conform to City standards. Additional
comments may be required following submittal of improvement plans for City approval.
9. The demolition of the existing structures triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral
Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main
prior'to demolition 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 VI IS video tape documenting
the internal condition of the pipe for approval by the Utilities Department.
10. The site also con_tains a private fire hydrant, which does not meet current City standards.
Any waterlines serving private fire hydrants must be separated from the public water
system.with an approved backflow prevention device, subject to the approval of the County
Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz.. Henry can be reached by calling 78175567. The
project shall include correction of this situation.
1-9
..Resolution No. (1999-Series)
Page 5
11. A water allocation is required, due to the additional units. Currently, a water:allocation can
-- only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation
division can help in determining the needed all and the necessary number of
retrofits. Water'Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. .
On motion of _, seconded by , and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES'
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 7`h day of September, 1999..
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ty orn Je fyCoorgensen
JShoals/CC/ARC 11-99(ResolutionA)
1-10
Attachment
Draft Resolution "B"
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION, AND DENYING AN
AFFORDABLE_ HOUSING PROJECT AT 1330 AND 1363 PISMO
STREET, (ER11-99 AND ARC11=99)
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo's Architectural Review Commission held a
special meeting on May 17, 1999 and a regular meeting on August 2, 1999, to consider
architectural and environmental review of an 11-apartment (13 density equivalent units per City
Code) multifamily housing project ARC 11=99 and ER 11-99; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission on August 2, 1999 approved ER-11-
99 and ARC-11-99 with findings and subject to conditions and code requirements;.and
WHEREAS, Evelyn Talmadge, Rick Hamlin, Peter Stenos and George Moylan filed
appeals of that action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, September 7, 1999, for the
purpose of considering the appeals to the Architectural Review Commission action on the
project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony of the applicant, appellants,
interested parties, the records of the Architectural Review Commission hearings and actions, and
the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of .
environmental impact, with mitigation, as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Architectural
Review Commission;
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis.Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of architectural review permit
application ARC-11-99, the Commission's decision, staff recommendation, public testimony,
and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed scale and design of the buildings are incompatible with the .surrounding
residential uses.
2. The housing development project would have a specific; adverse impact upon the public
i
health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the
project be developed at a lower density. As based on this paragraph, a "specific, adverse
1-11
Resolution No. (I 99q Series)
Page 2
impact" means a significant, unavoidable impact, as provided in the written standards,
policies, or conditions.
3. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified
pursuant to paragraph (1) other than the disapproval of the housing development project or
the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density."
Couneil speSEI&Ending 1
SECTION 2. Appeal Upheld. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action
approving the project is hereby upheld and the project 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 7`h day of September, 1999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
JShoals/CC/ARC 1 I-99(ResolutionA)
1-12
A k-olty Of SAn
APPEAL TO THE CITY Attachment 3
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
Architectural Review Commissiorlrendered on August 2, 1999
which consisted of the following (i:e., explain What you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
SEE ATTACHED SHEET
The undersigned discussed.the decision being appealed with:
John Shoals &
Jeff Hook/Community Development on August 4, 1999
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant: Evelyn Talmage 1408 JbhnsanStreet
Narnerrd.le Mailing Addr $ ((&. Zip odP�
San Luis is'po, � zT3401
543-1638
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative: N/A _ _
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only.
Calendared for _Spetember 7, 1999 Date & Time.Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s): RECEIVED
A. Jonas
AUG 4 - 1999
R. whisenand SLO CITY CLERK
J. Shoals
Original in City Clerk's Office - 3
i /�
RECEIVED
AUG 4 1999
CI1Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COp{ITY DEVELOPMENT
1-14
7
�II9�NI��1l19hIII������IIII�IW111111� ���
ut S '11 ' a m '-ft. .�� - -
Oy
APPEAL TO THE CITY CC Attachment 4
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
Architectural Review Commission rendered on August 2, 1999
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
I am appealing the ARC' s approval of the site plan for the housing project
proposed for 1363 Pismo Street, ARC file No. 11-99. This ARC action is
inconsistent with San Luis Obispo's ARC procedures and criteria, officially
adopted by the City Council under Resolution No. 5086, that require those
projects under ARC review to be designed to minimize interference with the
(1)privacy, (2)quiet, and (3)views of neighbors.
The site plan unnecessarily places a 3-unit building which includes two
2-story units, up against the rear property lines of my Pismo Street lots
causing interference with the privacy, quiet, and views. Alternative site
plans are possible that do not cause nearly the degree of interference;
such as the example layout submitted with my letter of August 2, 1999 to
the ARC and City Council.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
John Shoals / Community Dev. on August 4 , 1999
Name/Department (Date)
Appellant: Rick Hamlin .k P.O. Box 507 SLO 93406
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
541-1203 543-8882
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip-Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for �� 99/r Date & Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer RECEIVED
Copy to the following department(s):
CC AUG 1 0 1999
SLO CITY CLERK
On al in City Clerk's Office 1_15
1
August, 02, 1999
City Council
Architectural Review Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Council and Commission:
I have reviewed the Architectural Review Commission Staff Report
regarding the 11 unit complex proposed for 1363 Pismo Street; to be
discussed at the August 2, 1999 ARC meeting.
As you may recall from my letter of May 17, 1999, I have concerns about
the project' s interference with the privacy, quiet and views of its
neighbors, specifically the single-family residences I own at 1337 and
1343 Pismo Street. A copy of my May 17th letter is attached.
At the May 17th ARC meeting, the commission formally asked the applicant
to explore the "Scheme 2" project layout that applicant presented at the
meeting. This scheme moved all the two-story structures (except the one
fronting on Pismo St) far away from the neighbors backyards. This
alternative layout went a long way to alleviate interference with the
neighbors' views, quiet and privacy. Furthermore, most all public and
commission input clearly favored this layout over the original.
Attachment 3 shows the Scheme 2 site plan.
I was surprised to learn that the applicant has now rejected his own
alternative proposal and has chosen instead to attempt to modify the
original layout. However, it is obvious that such minor modifications
made to the original layout are almost insignificant in alleviating the
views, quiet, and privacy problems it poses . Attachment 2 shows the
modified original site plan.
I ask that the commission reject the modified original site plan,
Attachment 2, because it does not effectively minimize the projects
interference on the neighbors. And also because a layout that causes far
less interference with the neighbors' views, quiet, and privacy appears
entirely possible without major problems or complications. An example of
such a layout is attached as Example Layout.
This example layout also isolates the playground from the driveway and
railroad tracks, additionally it places the handicapped parking adjacent
to the handicap unit. And after parking their cars, residents would not
have to walk across the driveway to get to their homes . It also places
the units sufficiently away from the railroad tracks so that train noise
should not. be a problem. Furthermore, trees in the playground area will
enhance the buffer between Pismo St backyards.
Please note that the example places the three-unit (A A HC) structure at
least 35 ft from the Pismo St backyards and up against the edge of the
20 ft driveway (access would be from other side) ; and increases the
setback of the three unit (A B A) building to 20 ft behind 1333 Pismo St.
Additional reduction of the privacy and quiet impact can be gained by
designing the second story windows on the three-unit (A B A) structure
behind 1333 Pismo St so that they do not overlook the Pismo St backyards
any more than necessary.
1-16
Page imniodip
Page 2 of 8
A design such as the Example Layout with additional attention to the
second-story windows as they overlook backyards, conforms well to the
General Criteria of San Luis Obispo' s Architectural Review Process; while
the applicant' s latest site plan clearly does not.
The Criteria states: "A project should be designed to minimize
interference with the privacy, quiet, and views of its neighbors" .
A partial copy of the ARC General Criteria is attached.
Also attached is a color photo showing how certain two-story multifamily
units in San Luis Obispo appear from a perspective similar to the
backyards of the Pismo St lots, I am confident that this project can be
built in a way that it does not even suggest such an interference with
the neighbors .
Sincerely,
7�--•-�
Rick Hamlin, P.E.
P.O. Box 507
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
543-8882
attachments: Letter dated May 17, 1999
Attachment 2 (modified original site plan)
Attachment 3 (Scheme 2 site plan)
Example Layout dated August 1, 1999
ARC Guidelines, partial
Color photos, 2 each
1-17 �
May 17, 1999
City Council
Architectural Review Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Council and Commission:
I am writing to express concerns about the design and layout proposed for
the 11 unit apartment project at 1363 Pismo Street; specifically its
interference with the privacy, quiet and views of its neighbors.
Quoting from the booklet, Architectural Review in San Luis Obispo:
Guidelines for Architectural Review, General Criteria
9. Will the project be a good neighbor?
"It should not impair - directly or by the possible total effect
of several projects like it - the use, enjoyment, value, or orderly
and attractive development of neighboring public and private property.
A project should be designed to minimize interference with the
privacy, quiet and views of its neighbors. "
From the Staff Report:
"The ARC should focus on how the number of structures on the property
relates to building mass and neighborhood compatibility. "
(page 9, second paragraph)
"As designed, the project places two of the units (should read structures)
in close proximity to the existing residences. Given that the units are
two-story structures with bedrooms on the second floor, there is a
potential problem with rear yard privacy. Specifically, future occupants
will be looking down into adjacent rear yards, and existing neighbors
will be looking up into bedroom windows. " (page 9, last paragraph)
"ARC should provide direction on how the project should address these
privacy issues. " (page 5, first paragraph)
In addition .to the privacy issues cited in the Staff Report, there are also
issues of: (1) noise from the second-story units in line-of-sight and close
proximity to the neighbors, and (2) views being degraded significantly by the
two-story structures in close proximity to the property lines.
In relation to the existing neighborhood of predominately small single-family,
one-story homes, and the closeness to the historical district, the project is
significant as it involves large, two-story, high-density structures reaching
about 100-ft in length.
The proposal calls for placing the large, two-story structures up against
property lines. This design inherently poses problems relating to the privacy,
quiet and views of its neighbors. The proposed design and layout clearly does
not conform to the guidelines for architectural review.
It appears possible to design a project for this site with basic features that
would inherently minimize interference with the privacy, quiet and views of
the neighborhood. Therefor I urge that a new, alternative design and layout
be drawn up that is consistent with the architectural review guidelines.
Sincerely, RECEIVED
Rick Hamlin M av
Member, Pismo/Johnson Neighborhood Association SLO CITY COUNCIL
.a. e
ma
\. --------- T,aA$
l NCyp$URE
ENTR I.ONLn+l NT SIbN
Ir pRl GTOaY SI(rN \�
MA ILzoI b \.\
PROJECT SITE
--------------
1 /
00 �
I
I
I j �
THREE-UNIT
l>INt
tu
` (AAHG)
Q ❑ ca
dl fro PLAT6ROUND �
a exr.eLc eNGLosLxe
LAbHfw6.
urinra
I
-T \ PRO♦O$'_]
5'TtI�T
b b �
W\
n N Yf. � BOLU47S
O
SITE PLAN
PISMO STREET STATION
D INcfl NVnY.'fl .� l'
S �
Studio Desitin Group I
VV SITE PLAN
< r c b I I f
p 1 . v n I n s & Pismo Street Station
tit I MI ulr.SL,Suis!303 /
N . . 1 s N < . I • Ln Lun Obispo.CA 93401 San Lull Obispo, California
150515+1-3&+8 0' e+
0. I
A
4� V
c I N��,
o
R
Z _ b
° e y
J� �o
• bb
A \
VY
' S a
;ti 2 Cu
OS �C
JS.o
\ o
1-20
Example Layout
August 01 , 1999
�..i LFGLOWFC ��
b4.
--.DO
.DO•tb \
. %- -•-.._�.•__ °RCE:"' .
r / \
�^ V1 / \\
�'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
� — <
— I
J)"
3.�lT NO
111
LA
- �G
a
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U
W
Apr
Al DA r=ULUM
\
..
—
W I �•'....
— JL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- f . .
6 i
1-2171
LS�1, > MM
Z < O
.rte.::.i•.. , �•.•.!
. 0.
oo c
=�
S.
7 . Dl ; O OM 0 Q P a m 3 GCa N O M d r s d
C o O S C =r O CCD'-
=� m D .�O 3
Q nw ,mc m d r 0 o 37 E O mmmm m ^
O C m d C y D N y G`�C.<-y Q N 7 v a N Cr .0 D 7 N ID v D ` ) GT J
7 n _. a 1 ' I
o M f x.c m � c�nm,10 CD C 0 0 -rE;-P'o m o C�
ny_ Q"- c m �m� °-' -.a f.a �c-,'o o �a c ro n y Z
pjd dd7g oov`, c om - 7-o c Q.
•< Fco.�00 0 CD am 7 p.0 CCDm m m aQcaD N -M C N
_ m
CD y 7 m y 0 S d 0 0 < m -O q 7 n Q El m '•'V
f f < • 06
o � magdad � m7ppm = naQno
_ O 7 O C_ y'6.m N p d O 7 y C_ < O -C.D . x 7 G 0 CD m
S y cn CL a c� p y a n C m' < 7 n a y a*O m m O S d 1
m�ycv5• a -� mv�d0 m = 3o� m �c 7v
�•� r!# 77•`° �d n<i p_ s_!nd7o50 d7 = s � °.mo m � �
C m N f0 p Jr n 4! C m m n m 3 ^
aff 7 pmnc mC m ax o
; ,::. O Cop p- 0toQ" 0 w N � .Q 3. � m
cO C a 0 d d. < 7 .V y S c' 7 0 p y m 0 cyil m 7'm
cr
3 .0
O m 7•< e0 a C_ C ?h 0 7 D) d m
a <m q m O DSi m m v j p O 10 0 0 0 7 f. _ Q H
l f CD d 7 O'0 01 7 d D O y — •t
O
N O 7'O O m •< fA m O C. m J x 7`G 0 N
C 'O cc C Q7 A Cor a -i N O' N OM,
y 7 < a C Q d
F). 7 3 cD a < 7 O 7 cD d y j m c? y = a 0 C 7,f 7.,0 < m m
C O a m N,� m n m co 7 m a 1a O.0 0 m 0 W m Wo N .z D 7 D) O ..
�.f'•'1`.;Y mm �� ON "' y Sap 7dyf^ a 7'� am QO <CD � N7 7K Mam
. a d d 7'5 C m 7 a 0 7 m m y 0 a a d D 3 m 7 -0
so m a S o m•� 7 d d d 7 d a 0 N O y m O7 n'M.m', O ? n O
y < >E0a' avf -pmmBR Rcm3' � cCE micFDpma�m� 7 < 23 ^
oCD � > >cm pact ppomvm=< C 77pp- CCMCD
•�
10 ,C x D:1 m C F m w m a A N d 3 Q d \G O N - S c0^fl m —c0 N <
d d 7 S CO +'� N O 7 7 7 C d m m F N Cr fD I d
� 710C aa ,Jd < 70fTl' mya7 'O 0 Sc3 � OOOy
7 m m.Q �p Dl m 0 70 =r m � 0 y 7 =-o � •< a N co S C 7 0 -0 a 0
�• ...� ._:
to 00 iF cSD N O m O C O c3D tc C C t7 00 7 c0 7 a N a 0 O n a
:ti.. .: � dH.
� m =c fOy as2cD0 Q mmaNDQr- -'D < m
r y 3 O m y v Q y 7 O N Cf N N to CD 0) DrC_COO a !0 <7 Q J y co
O S
":b/• .114. r7-i'1^r'��� F O G CD O7 cp O 41 H'O C w O y c0 N n s' M N O O l
�`t-1mj�•.. =.C�: � r y O 3 D G O S� d n 7 m O { yt��
=7. =N 0 ti m a m cOl or a N d y.O O C CD O �. G t;
5 ? O O- 7 m m C N M _ O d < 0 O
�.,. ■/ 7 S� �.� 7 p 7 .cr f0 0 7 m m cc Ei D d y
/'.•'Y7 a m m 7 c0 m O. 7 m 7 co - a N 0 7 M a a 0 fD (<DM y
S
I I I t
J ,
�I
I_-
1
�li��►uIVlO�I�I�IIII����IV►►►►►�� Ip�� t
®
y S
An - = --
91�
APPEAL TO THE CITY ( Attachment 5
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
Architectural Review ommiRsi ndered on
-- Qnonet � tOOo
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
SEE ATTACHED LETTER
The undersigned discussed the dedision being appealed with:
Name/Department on
(Date)
Appellant: ame/TttSterios 1346 Pismo S`tre
Ne n
Mailing Address (& Zip Code) 43�
549-8746
Home Phorie Work Phone
Representative: N/A
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For 0mc ial use only
Calendared for September 7 , 1999
Date & Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s): E: AUU
ECEIVED
A. Jonas 1 1 1999R. Whisenand
:i CLLRK
6ft9&Qrf K Clerk's Office
1-24 �y.
August 11, 1999
I, Peter Sterios,residing at 1346 Pismo St. in the city of S.L.O: San Luis Obispo,Ca request to appeal the
decision made by the Arch, Review Committee at 1 El p.m. on Aug.2, 1999,giving a final approval of
the project before them commonly known as 1'1-99(low-income.multifamily housing new the Union
Pacific railroad between Pismo and Buchon streets.)
RECEIVED
AUG 1' 1. 1999
Thank you,
SLO CITY CLERK
Peter D. Sterios
(805)549-8746
1
1-25
RECEIVED
30 July 1999 J U L 3 0 1999
City Council CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
City of San Luis Obispo COMMUNITY 0E1 rI.OPVE'.1T
CC: R.Whisenant&J.Shoals- Planning; M. McCluskey- Engineering;J.Aitken-Architectural Review Committee
RE: Affordable Housing Project on Buchon and Pismo Streets
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is our response to the revised architectural drawings resubmitted to the Planning Department for
consideration at the August 3, 1999 meeting of the Architectural Review Commission.
Based on what we see on the drawings,the Housing Authority's revised design has not responded to the following
items recommended by the Commissioners and the public at the last ARC meeting:
1. SITE DENSITY— As we previously stated,the irregular nature of the shape of this site clearly makes it
unique,and although the allowable density increases for a project of this type would allow it eleven units,
placing eleven units on this parcel continues to be incompatible with its surroundings and the existing
environment of the neighborhood. The fad that the Housing Authority's revised design did not respond to
the Commission's recommendation to rotate the three unit building on Pismo St.,or to move the two story
units backing up to the Pismo Street residences more than the 10 feet away from the rear property line
suggests that the developer's necessity to place eleven units on this site outweighed the stated
recommendations of the ARC and the Pismo/Johnson Neighborhood Association(PJNA).
2. REAR YARD SETBACKS —The PJNA continues to feel that the decision to restrict vehicular access
from Buchon Sreet creates the need for an on-site road which over-commits the site to paving,and reduces
the available areas of the site to locate the units in a manner more suitable to the neighborhood. The
Commission also recommended to the Housing Authority to reduce the amount of hard paving,which
appears to have been ignored. Although the revised design has attempted to mitigate the effects of the two-
story units up against the rear yard setbacks by placing the laundry building between the units along the
Pismo Street properties and open up a space between the units along the Buchon and Johnson Street
properties,the design has not addressed the privacy issues stated at the previous meeting with the two-story
units that remain. There are still 7 two-story units overlooking the backyards of the neighboring
residences, and we feel the revised design does not sufficiently address the problem.
We also object to the continued"flatness"of the two story unit rear elevations,which are devoid of any
significant architectural features and continues to present a very"Projects-like"appearance. The revised
design continues to propose unprecedented building massing along the rear yards, and severely affects the
privacy, quiet,and views of the neighboring residents. Also,the three units with Pismo Street frontage
continue to fall into the 65 dB contour for noise generated by the railroad,which exceeds allowable
standards, without any perceived mitigation measures.
In conversations with Planning Department staff about the revised design,the decision to keep the location
of the parking areas the same and to back the units up against the rear yard setback per the original design
was the outcome of a perceived problem of parking lot lighting and possible loitering adjacent to the
neighbors yards. The P/JNA does not agree with this decision and would prefer to see the alternate design
presented by the Architect at the last ARC meeting. Current parking lot lighting design can effectively
shield overshot from light standards,and if loitering is a perceived problem by the Housing Authority,then
appropriate security measures should be taker by the developer to insure it is not a problem, irregardless of
it's location. 1.26 3lr
The PJNA continues to feel that site density concerns,the rear yard setback concerns,and the noise
concems could be mitigated if the proposed vehicular access road between the units fronting Pismo St. arA
the rest of the units was eliminated. The units on each street frontage would then be allowed parking at
site access from their own corresponding streets. This would free up more open space and possibly a
protected central courtyard on-site,giving the residents more of a sense of community, and reducing the
noise problems. At the same time, it would allow the two-story units to be relocated further away from the
neighbor's yards thus reducing the "visual density"of the project and also reduce the project's impact on
the neighboring resident's privacy,quiet, and views.
3. TRAFFIC —As we stated previously, by avoiding the problem at Buchon and Johnson,and diverting
project traffic onto Pismo St.,the impact of the design will add to an already difficult crossing at the comer
of Johnson and Pismo, creating two dangerous intersections. We would like the safety problem at Buchon
and Johnson addressed by the City before this project is approved. We have stated that the speed of traffic
has increased since street parking was removed and bike lanes were installed along Johnson Ave. which has
increased the danger at the intersection of Buchon and Johnson. At the previous ARC meeting, a
representative from the City's Engineering Department stated that in fact, average traffic speed for this
section of Johnson Ave had decreased since the installation of bike lines. The traffic consultant hired by the
PJNA suggests that"Average Speed"criteria is misleading without more information, such as traffic
volume and times of day. If the traffic volume increases substantially, effectively slowing down the
"Average Speed"during peak traffic periods, it would skew the findings of increased speed during non-
peak times. This is what the neighbors along Johnson Ave have observed;that during non-peak periods,
traffic speed has increased substantially.
With the abandonment of the end of Buchon Street into the project site and the new location of the fire gate
bollards and trash enclosure, our traffic consultant feels the new turn-around space at the end of Buchon is
inadequate to accommodate a standard car, let alone an emergency vehicle,without to back up to tum
around, and does not meet current city engineering standards.
4. SCHOOL BUS CIRCULATION/PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ACROSS JOHNSON AVE. —As was
stated at the previous ARC meeting, since a majority of this project fronts Buchon St., a majority of the
pedestrians (adults and school children),will inevitably use the Buchon and Johnson intersection to access
school bus stops, Scolaris Market, Mitchell Park, and downtown. Given the currant public awareness of
fatal traffic accidents with school children and a history of reported and unreported accidents at the Buchon
and Johnson intersection and the nearby Johnson Ave railroad overbridge which have involved fatalities,the
PJNA continues to feel that the approval of this project must depend on the succesful mitigation of the
pedestrian problem at Johnson and Buchon. It was recommended by the Commission that the Housing
Authority restrict pedestrain access from the Buchon Street side of this project, but it would appear that the
revised design does not address this.
5. PARKING-The PJNA continues to feel strongly that the lack of parking is one of the most significant
issues of the proposed development. As previously stated,we disagree with the findings of the Initial
Environmental Study ER 11-99,prepared by the City's Planning Department. Under ITEM 6. TRANS-
PORTATION/CIRCULATION,where the staff conclusion was "Less than Significant". If this project
were required to meet existing City standards for normal development, it would need 26 spaces.
The Director of the Housing Authority has publicly stated that there are no guarantees that in the future,
this project will remain as affordable housing,which would potentially mean that these units would be
grossly under-parked. The Director also states that in similar developments throughout the city,that the
parking lots are not full. The PJNA has spoken to the neighbors of several of these other Housing
Authority developments and consistently the neighbors report that a significant number of residents and
their guests prefer street parking out of convenience and proximity to their units.
The revised design reduces the number of spaces previously submitted from 17 down to 15,even with the
additional area provided by the street abandonment on Buchon. We are troubled by this inabil tyk'jddress ,
our parking concerns,which are unique to this neighborhood as previously stated due to: 1. the
installation of a bike lane on Johnson Avenue and the consequent removal of 10 on-street parking spaces
serving 8 residences along this portion of Johnson; and 2. the neighborhood on Pismo Street is already
substandard in terms of parking and does not have access to neighboring streets due to it being enclosed in
a "pocket"by the creek,the railroad,and the unsafe Johnson Avenue,which affords no parking.
The PJNA feels that the irregular shape of this site is further complicating the availabilty of street parking
for the development, since with a regular shaped lot,there would be street frontage to accommodate guest
and overflow parking. With the street abandonment,and the street tum-around on Buchon,there is NO
street parking for this project on Buchon, and at best only three on-street parking spaces on Pismo. It is
impossible for the neighborhhood,which is already impacted and substandard for parking to absorb this
project in it's current form. We would like to know how 15 on-site spaces and 3 on-street spaces are able
to accommodate 28 bedroom units and their guests?
In conclusion,the PJNA feels the revised design has not sufficiently addressed the recommendations made
by the ARC at the last meeting and that this project should be required to be re-designed. It is our wish for
this development that the existing character of our neighborhood be maintained, and that the development
be consistent with Architectural Review Commission standards required for other private developments in
the city of San Luis Obispo.
Sincerely,
PISMO/JOHNSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
Peter Stenos, AIA Robert&Ginny Griffin
Past President, American Institute of Architects CCC Former City Councilor&Professional Artist
Property Owner-1346 Pismo St. Property Owners— 1436 Johnson
Owen Betts Linda Shotwell
Business Manager, Laborers International Union Local 402; Landscape Architect;
Property Owner- 1356 Pismo St. Property Owner— 1418 Johnson Ave.
Rick Hamlin, P.E. Ruth &Keith Moles
General Manager, Bailey Bridge Inc.; Property Owners— 1420 Johnson Ave.
Property Owner— 1343 & 1337 Pismo St.
Ty& Denise Martin
Evelyn Talmage Property Owners— 1316 Buchon Ave.
Real Estate Management;
Property Owner— 1311 Pismo St. & 1408 Johnson Ave. Anthony Gomez
Property Owner— 1366 Pismo St.
Palmer Hewlitt
Locomotive Engineer, Union Pacific Railroad; Marlie Schmidt
Property Owner— 1353 Pismo St. School Teacher;
Property Owner— 1336 Pismo St.
Mary Fox
Business Consultant; Mark Johnson & Ursula Bishop
Property Owner— 1314 Pismo St. Property Owners - 1220 Pismo St.
Rob Lewin Tim Andreatta & Kim Wreobel
Fire Captain; Property Owners - 1265 Buchon St
Property Owner— 1336 Pismo St.
William& Bernice Jeong
Property Owner- 1500 Johnson Ave
1-28 S�-
glal bhIIIIIflIIUI�� �u�iiii���l ��in t
y ® S - - — - --
UMMMEWAPPEAL TO THE CITY Attachment 6
I
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
,9?1R�H/7FG%vRAL JS'�biE� C.O/371hi55i � ndered on / J. 0 5 7
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
Lcn��; �/aria 3 a� 19 )WoL4L + -9 Tv n- EED 7v f� vT� T�
fjviLp�n-(r j=!}G!/�b pi5!hD STREE� rc> 6,,5-
The
jFThe undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
AIA•L Y/y4-L,419LD6 T&IA on 6L�
Name/Department (Date) '
/{vt�7/rL(� /9 tiTl/DAITf O% 7-NE
Appellant: Lr Ty 0if 7, a, Cf3 y3y
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
Home Phone Work Phone
6:6aR6-F
Representative:
Name/T`itle Mailing Address (& Zip Code) 3+,vi
ror Omaai use Only.
Calendared for tAPiVI 7 Date & Time Received:
c: City Attorney V�P M.
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s):
RECEIVED
AUG 9
S10 1999
c/ry ctF
jinalinoc��ityy�Clerws ffice
Draft Minutes Attachment 7
ARC Meeting August 2, 1999
Page 13
4. ARC 11-99; 1330 and 1363 Pismo Street: Review of four new structures
with 11 affordable housing apartments and site improvements, and environmental
review; R-2 zone; Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
John Shoals, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
Commission approve a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures, and grant final
approval to the project, with directions on building colors, placement of the building
facing Pismo Street and details to return to staff, based on findings and subject to
conditions and code requirements.
Tim Ronda, Studio Design Group, 641 Higuera, gave an overview of the project and
described the project changes. He explained why they did not use the alternative
design (Scheme 2) and rotate the building closest to Pismo Street. He circulated
examples of the building colors.
Nick Krause, Acoustical Engineer, gave an overview of the noise study prepared for the
project. He went over the assumptions about the number of trains and the functions of
trains, used in the study. He explained existing noise conditions in the neighborhood,
and outlined the findings and recommendations of the study.
George Moylan, Executive Director of the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo, cited
examples of Housing Authority projects.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Palmer Hewlett, discussed noise from the trains and explained train operations at this
segment of the track. He had concerns with the noise study.
Peter Stenos, 1343 Pismo Street, found the re-submittal to be insulting because it didn't
address the Architectural Review Commission's concerns. He was disappointed that
the applicant did not pursue Scheme 2 (the alternative plan) and felt that they had
rejected the plan without providing evidence that it would not work. They were being
asked to trust the applicant and his architect. He stated that the unique shape of the
site put it into it's own category regarding property development standards. He
contended that the density was too much and should be reduced to be compatible with
the neighborhood. He recommended the building on Pismo Street be "squared-up" with
a site plan showing the building in it's location. He felt that the building would require a
setback exception for a street yard of less than 20 feet. He was concerned with the
flatness of the rear elevations of the two-story structures closest to the existing houses.
He felt that final approval was not appropriate because too many things were left
undone with traffic and parking still a problem.
1-30
Draft Minutes
ARC Meeting August 2, 1999
Page 14
Linda Shotwell, 1418 Johnson, felt there were still traffic issues. She requested a site
cross section and supported bikes. She said she would also recommend fencing to
discourage pedestrians on Buchon Street. She felt the initial study and mitigation
measures did not address the problems.
Robert Luan, mentioned that he was upset that the neighbors didn't get an opportunity
to meet with the Planning Commission. He suggested a second bike path and an
additional street light on Pismo Street. He reiterated his concern regarding the lack of
parking. He stressed safety concerns, the possibility of a train derailment at the bend,
and the significant change in traffic on Pismo Street.
Evelyn Talmadge, 1408 Johnson, felt that the project would be sub-standard by taking
away the parking. She noted that if the property was developed by a private company,
they would have to comply with all the standards. She was concerned with safety along
the railroad tracks if a wall was installed.
Rick Hamlin, 1337 and 1343 Pismo Street, pointed out a discrepancy on the project
plans. He believed that the project density does not match the neighborhood and
should be reduced. He also felt that buffers between the two-story structures and the
existing homes should be increased. He referred to his letter of August 2, 1999, which
detailed his concerns and included an alternate lay-out of the project.
Mr. Prate[, 2050 Garfield, said that he was purchasing a home in the neighborhood and
was concerned with the parking and density issues.
Nathan Strong, discussed traffic problems and suggested a light at Buchon and
Johnson Streets.
Responding to comments, Tim Rhonda said that there would be no speed bumps and
the fence would be a 6 foot high cedar fence.
The Public Hearing was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Stevenson asked for clarification of the building elevations. He
addressed the environmental impacts and Linda Shotwell's comments. He liked the
project changes and felt that the applicant had addressed the Commission's concerns
with site design, building massing and location, privacy, common open space and
views. He identified changes such as: the 5-unit building being divided into two smaller
structures with larger rear yards and greater separation between buildings, relocation of
the laundry/utility building, and enlargement of the playground area. He suggested
additional articulation on the rear of the buildings and relocation of the windows on the
two-story building next to the lots on Pismo Street to minimize overlook. He also
recommended rotating the building facing Pismo Street.
1-31
Draft Minutes
ARC Meeting August 2, 1999
Page 15
Commissioner Lopes had questions on the noise analysis. He did not feel that the
Commission could approve the project without revising the noise section of the initial
study. He expressed concerns with density, but understood that the Architectural
Review Commission did not have authority to require the affordable housing project be
developed with lower density. He expressed concerns with parking and suggested that
the applicant reduce the play area to get more parking.
John Shoals, Associate Planner, clarified that if the Architectural Review Commission
accepts the noise study, that initial study can be modified to include the findings and
recommendations of the study.
Commissioner Metz disagreed with more parking and less playground. She liked the
project changes and the colors. She did not have a problem with the orientation of the
three-unit building at Pismo Street and thought it provided a good opportunity for more
landscaping. She liked the revised landscape plans.
Commissioner Aiken liked the building design and architecture, but asked for
clarification of the parking required for the project. He felt the density was appropriate
and the setbacks were good as they go beyond the standards. He suggested
additional articulation and an analysis be conducted for a signal at Pismo Street and
Johnson Street. He also had questions regarding an emergency turn-around at Pismo.
John Shoals, Associate Planner, clarified the parking stating that the project has a
parking requirement of 13 spaces, and is providing 15 spaces.
Commissioner Metz moved to approve the Negative Declaration with Mitigation
Measures with modifications to the noise section of the initial study and to grant final
approval to the project with the findings and modified conditions as noted in the Meeting
Update.
Commissioner Stevenson seconded the motion.
AYES: Commissioners Metz, Stevenson, and Aiken
NOES: Commissioner Lopes
ABSENT: Commissioner Howard and Parker
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Rawson
The motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission scheduled for Monday, August 16, 1999 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council
Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully,
1-32
Minutes
ArAcn . 7
ARC Meeting May 17, 1999
Page 2
Commissioner Howard felt the applicant should comply with th gn regulations.
Commissioner Stevenson stated that he believed that the y would be better served
with a smaller sign with a dark background. He tho the proposed sign was an
improvement over the existing sign.
Ron Whisenand, Development Review Ma er, explained that the Architectural
Review Commission could use the findin isted in the Sign Regulations or similar
findings to approve an exception. He i cated that the findings under Alternatives in
the Staff Report meet the intent.
Commissioner Parker moved t pprove the sign with exceptions. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner son. The motion failed on a vote of 4-2.
Commissioner Lopes m d to deny the sign with exceptions.
The motion was se ded by Commissioner Howard.
AYES: missioners Lopes, Howard, Stevenson and Metz
NOES: ommissioners Rawson and Parker
ABSENT: Commissioner Aiken
The tion passed.
2. ARC 11-99; 1330-1363 Pismo Street: Review of three new structures with 11
affordable housing apartment units, site development with parking, and
environmental review; R-2 zone; Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo,
applicant.
John Shoals, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
Commission grant schematic approval to the building and site designs with direction on
changes and additional information that should accompany plans for final approval.
Tim Rhonda, Studio Design Group, explained the design process and project
background. He said that they had met with City staff and neighbors on the project and
he showed the Commission an alternative (Plan "B") with the units closer to the railroad
tracks and the parking area closer to the existing homes. However, due to site
constraints, he felt that the proposed project was the best design.
George Moylan, Housing Authority, addressed the density, parking, and noise issues.
He also discussed the history of the parking requirements with reduced parking for
1-33
Minutes
ARC Meeting May 17, 1999
Page 3
affordable housing projects. He mentioned that this project was needed in the city, and
he felt it was a good location.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Pete Sterios felt the project was setting a precedence. He believed that the Zoning
Regulation standards do not apply to the property because the lay-out of the site is
difficult given its irregular shape. The major issues are: proximity to the rear property
line of the existing homes, traffic and safety issues on Johnson & Buchon Streets,
neighborhood compatibility, and obstruction of views to the mountains. He felt that the
project could be designed more effectively if some of the units were accessed from
Buchon Street and a larger common area were provided at the center of the site. He
felt that traffic on Johnson Street could be improved with synchronized lights.
Rich Hamlin, 1343 Pismo, felt the two-story units would cause problems with privacy,
generate noise and block views to the hills. He indicated that traffic and parking was an
existing problem and suggested a further study of Buchon Street and Johnson Avenue.
Evelyn Tamaldge, 1408 Johnson Street, stated that in the 20 years she had owned her
property, the "Johnson Avenue Death Corridor' had 7 deaths, plus many unreported
fender benders. She felt the neighborhood was in a pocket with the stream on one
side, the railroad on two and the street out front with no parking. She reminded
everyone that many of the houses were built before 1926 and didn't accommodate very
much off-street parking and that there wasn't much parking for guests. She felt the
development with additional children in the area would be fine, but was concerned
about accidents. She stated that she had read the EIR and it said that the impact was
not significant, but she felt that if children got smashed on Johnson it would be
significant.
Linda Shotwell, Johnson Street, agreed with her neighbor's comments. She also felt
the bike lane was not a good decision and that Johnson and Buchon was a bad
intersection.
Owen Bits concurred with the other neighbors' comments.
Jim Hanson, Public Works Department, stated that with all of the development
proposed in the area and the expansion of cross-town connections, some relief should
be provided. He felt the additional traffic generated at this location would be no more
than other projects. He explained that smaller projects that generate 20-100 trips a day
contribute to traffic impact fees to improve locations when they warrant improvement.
He discussed a report that was completed a few months back that showed the average
speed had gone down since 1990 from 32 mph to 29 mph. He stated that the peak
period tended to be when high school got out, but not in the am or pm commute hours.
He said that there may have been several unreported accidents at the Johnson and
1-34
Minutes
ARC Meeting May 17, 1999
Page 4
Pismo intersection, but there had only been one reported that would have been
correctable by a traffic signal. He mentioned that there may have been a dog that was
hit and a rear-end collision that was actually past the intersection, but those type of
collisions wouldn't be eliminated by a traffic signal and he believed a lot of cases may
be increased because of people being forced to stop. After being asked is
synchronized lighting would be a good possibility, he stated it could work, but
synchronization sometimes increases speed.
The Public Hearing was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Parker wanted the architect to explore Plan "B" and look at putting the
units closer to the railroad and further away from the existing houses. He stated that he
could support the setback exceptions if needed to improve the project design. He liked
the style of the architecture, but felt the colors were too drab, the windows needed trim
and window mullions, and the rake on the eaves should be bigger.
Commissioner Lopes said that he thought the project was a variation from the existing
neighborhood and that it might be better to reduce the number of structures as well as
the size of the structures. He felt the noise study should be revised to show the noise
contours and sound attenuation.
Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager, stated that specific findings needed to
be made to reduce the units below what was allowed by the General Plan. He re-
emphasized that the Architectural Review Commission's responsibility was to review
the site and building design, not density and number of units allowed by the General
Plan.
Commissioner Howard felt the project was worthy and that everyone should do what
was possible to make it happen. She suggested repositioning the buildings so that the
openings don't face existing residences, and reducing the number of parking spaces to
allow more design flexibility. She also felt that one color scheme would- be more
consistent with the neighborhood rather than three different schemes.
Commissioner Stevenson liked Plan "B", and the project's architecture. He
recommended moving the building (closest to Pismo Street and the railroad tracks) to
be more square with Pismo Street and creating a deterrent to help reduce pedestrian
traffic on Buchon Street. He would like to see the project more in scale with the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Parker moved to grant schematic approval to the project with the
directions stated in the Meeting. Update.
1-35
Minutes
ARC Meeting May 17, 1999
Page 5
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Metz.
AYES: Commissioners Parker, Metz, Howard, Stevenson, and Lopes
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Aiken
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Rawson
The motion passed.
AP
3. ARC 22-99; 9 Higuera: Review ofa posed bridge at Old Mission
Cemetery with creek setback reduction, d environmental review; C-S zone;
Monterey Catholic Diocese, applicant.
John Shoals, Associate Planner, pres ted the staff report recommending the
Commission approve a negative declar on with mitigation measures and grant final
approval to the bridge design and n entry based on recommended findings and
conditions.
Brian Little, Central Coast Engine ng, noted that the applicant didn't have a problem
with the conditions. He also ans red Commission's questions.
There was no public comment.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Lopes ask for clarification on the location of fencing and parking.
Commissioner Howard d not have a problem with the bridge or access.
Commissioner Parke was concerned with condition #19 because it was a drainage
ditch not a creek.
Commissioner St enson asked for clarification of the creek's status.
Commissioners awson and Metz don't have any problem with the project.
Commission e Rawson moved to approve the mitigated negative declaration and grant
final approv to the project based on the findings and subject to the conditions outlined
in the staff port.
1-36
Attachment 8
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#4
BY: John Shoals, Associate Planner'vp� 1VI TING DATE: August 2, 1999
FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Mana r
/t
FILE NUMBER: ARC 11-99
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1330-1363 Pismo Street
SUBJECT: Consideration of an eleven unit housing project on a 0.86-acre site, between Pismo
and Buchon Streets, adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Approve a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures, and grant final approval to the
project, with directions on building colors, placement of the building facing Pismo Street and
details to return to staff, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements.
BACKGROUND
Situation
This project was initially reviewed by the.Architectural Review Commission on May 17, 1999.
The Commission generally liked the building architecture, but felt that the applicant should
explore other site designs and building articulation to more fully address: neighborhood
compatibility (i:e., privacy and Building size), traffic/circulation, and noise from the adjacent
railroad. After extensive discussion and substantial public testimony, the ARC granted
schematic approval to the project with directions on site design, building architecture and
landscaping. The project plans have been revised to address most of the Commission's
concerns, and the applicant is.asking the ARC to grant final approval to the project..
Data Summary
Address: 1330 and 1363 Pismo Street
Property owner/Applicant: Housing Authority = City of San Luis Obispo
Representative: Studio Design Group
Zoning: Medium Density Residential (R-2)
General plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental status: Negative Declaration with mitigation approved by the Director.April
26, 190.
Project action deadline: 60 days from date of adoption of the Negative Declaration with
mitigation measures. ARC to take final action on Mitigated Negative Declaration.
1-37
ARC 11-99 (Housing Auth-_qty)
Page 4 - — - — -was rejected because the project proponent feels that it would detract from the elevation most
visible from the street by eliminating most of the front yard landscaping and hiding the entry
behind the fence. They also feel that placing the private yard in the rear of the plan adjacent to
the living area extends the visual living area for the tenants.
StaffAnalysis:
Staff finds that the revised project addresses most of the Commission's directions on site design
and building location. The applicant has explored using scheme `B" and determined that this
layout does not allow for adequate separation of buildings and increases the units exposure to
train noise. Instead, the applicant has modified the original site design.leaving the buildings and
parking in the same general configuration with the following changes: the largest building (a
five-unit building) was divided into two smaller buildings; the rear yards of the buildings closest
to the existing residences were increased by moving the buildings farther away from the
residences; the one-story utility/laundry building was relocated to between the two-story
structures and next to the centrally-located open space area; and the common open space
(playground area) was enlarged.. In staff s opinion, the revised project addresses building mass,
privacy and viewshed concerns.
Staff does not, however; feel that the applicant has adequately addressed the ARC'.s direction on
the building closest to Pismo Street. Project plans show the building in its same general location
with the private yards closest to the railroad tracks. Staff still believes this building can be
designed so that it could be rotated. to be square to Pismo Street and reduce potential noise
impacts from trains on the railroad tracks. ARC should decide if the revised project adequately
addresses its concerns or if addition modifications are necessary.
B. Building Architecture
The proposed building architecture can be generally described as "Farmhouse Vernacular" with
shed roofs. Roof overhangs are supported with diagonal support braces. Building materials
include hardboard horizontal siding with wood trim, metal roofing. In general,the ARC liked the
building architecture and encouraged the applicant to explore providing more substantial eaves,
trim and window mullions on the buildings.
Project plans were not modified to increase the eave overhangs. The-project architect does not
feel that the architectural style invoked—American venacular farmhouse with nested steep
pitched gables--lends itself to deeper overhangs. With respect to additional window treatments,
the building design includes various windows,single and grouped,with divided lites and window
trim.
Sta Analysis:
Although the building.designs have not been modified, ARC direction was only a suggestion and
not a mandate: Therefore,staff recommends that the ARC approve building architecture.
1-38
ARC 11-99 (Housing Autl._..ry)
Page 2
Site description
The project site is a 0.86-acre irregular-shaped lot between Pismo and Buchon Streets, and
adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and tracks. The site is generally flat with
a less than 2% slope.
A portion of the site was formerly the City Water Department Yard, and consists of two post-
1950 corrugated metal warehouse buildings.. The site also includes three pre-1950 houses and a
free-standing garage. The six buildings are proposed to be demolished or relocated to another
site to accommodate the project. The surrounding area is primarily developed with single family
residential uses on R-2 zoned land.
Project description
The project is the development of a 0.86-acre site with an affordable multifamily housing project
consisting of 1.1 apartments in four residential structures, a. laundry/utility building, parking, a
small outdoor play area, landscaping and other site improvements. Primary access to the site
will be a driveway from Pismo Street. The applicant is proposing to abandon a portion of
Buchon Street and to limit vehicular access from this street to emergency purposes only.
Attachment 1 is a summary of the project statistics and applicable Code requirements.
EVALUATION
A. Site Design
The ARC gave the applicant several directions on site design, including the following:. l) explore
using scheme 2 (layout `B") which involves placing the units closer to the railroad tracks with
the driveway and parking area closer to the existing residences; 2) consider re-positioning the
buildings so that openings do not face the existing residences and the noise source (railroad), and
so there is less interference with viewsheds; 3) break-up and offset the units to reduce the scale
and mass of the buildings; and 4) rotate the three-unit building), at the northeast corner of the
site, to be square with Pismo Street and the driveway. ARC direction and project modifications
are discussed in the following paragraphs:
1. Alternative Design (Scheme 2):
The applicant explored scheme '2 which called for placing the proposed units closer to the
railroad and farther from the residences. According to.the project architect, scheme 2 did not
allow for a generous common space and adequate separation of building masses. They also
indicate that the building entrances were more crowded and the sound exposure to train noise
was increased by placing the units closer to the primary noise source. Instead, the applicant
chose to modify the original design by: separating the largest building into two buildings,
moving the buildings farther away from the neighboring yards and placing the one-story.
utility/laundry building between the two-story residential building and adjacent to the centrally-
1-38A
ARC 11-99 (Housing AWL_.LY)
Page 3 - - ---
located common area.
It should be noted that part of the ARC direction was that the project noise study be updated to
evaluate the alternative design and to identify mitigation measures to comply with the General
Plan Noise Element noise levels (interior and exterior noise exposure). The project architect
maintains that since the site plan did not change with respect to train noise, the noise study has
not been revised and the original recommendation that "no mitigation measures are required"
still applies.. The project architect indicates that the noise consultant will be available to answer
questions at the meeting.
2. Building Mass and Orientation:
At the May 17" meeting, there was substantial discussion on loss of privacy and obstruction of
views due the proposed building heights (two-story) and building placement. Noise.exposure
from trains on the railroad tracks was also discussed. To address these issues, the ARC directed
the applicant to "break-up" and offset the units to reduce the scale and mass of the buildings; and
to consider positioning the buildings so that openings do not face the existing residences and the
railroad, and so there is less interference with viewsheds.
Although the buildings are in the same general configuration, there are several notable project
changes. The original plans included a five-unit building setback eight (8) to 10 feet from the
property line. In the revised plans,the five-unit.structure has replaced with two buildings (a two-
unit and three-unit building) with increased rear yard setbacks (10 to 15 feet). These buildings
are 10 feet apart and offset by about five (5) feet. The one-story utility/laundry building was.
moved between the two-story buildings and next to the centrally-located common open space. In
addition,the bedroom windows on several of the units were moved to the side of the buildings to
eliminate a direct overlook into the neighboring yards. The applicant feels that these project
modifications adequately address building massing, privacy and viewshed issues.
3. Modifications to the Building Facing_Pismo..Street:
The Commission also discussed the proposed location of the three-unit building facing Pismo
Street. Concerned with noise exposure and building appearance, the ARC directed the applicant
to rotate this three-unit building to be square with Pismo Street and the driveway; and to design
the building to comply with the City's standards for exterior and interior noise levels.
Specifically, the architect was to explore moving private outdoor area to the fronts of the units
away from the railroad tracks.
According to the project architect, the three-unit building facing Pismo Street was not rotated
because it would compromise the front yard landscaping. It should also be noted that this
building was increased in size and a portion of the building now extends into the required 20-foot
street yard along Pismo Street.
The concept of placing the private fenced yards in the front of the building (for noise protection)
1-38B
ARC 11-99 (Housing Autl:__ity)
Page 5
C. Building Color
Three color schemes were originally proposed for the project—a light gray building with dark
grey trim and slate grey roof, a light pastel green building with a medium green trim and a forest
green roof and a light blue building with a medium blue trim and a dark blue roof. ARC felt that
there were too many colors and that the selected colors were too drab. ARC directed the
applicant to explore using one unifying color scheme with accent colors possibly on the trim.
The applicant is proposing a new color scheme with deep body colors and lighter trim. Two
color schemes are.proposed for the revised project. In scheme "A," the building base color is a
slate blue (Odyssey Blue) with a creme (Artist's Canvas) trim and a taupe (Light Stone) roof. In
scheme `B," the primary color is a brick red (Red Jarrah) with the same creme trim and taupe
roof. The buildings will be unified by a common metal roof color and trim color. A colors and
materials board will be available at the meeting.
Sta Analysis:
Although the proposed building colors are imaginative and create visual interest, staff is
concerned that the proposed colors are a stark contrast to other buildings in the immediate area
and will draw unnecessary attention to the housing project. Staff recommends that the color
scheme be modified by using muted or neutral shade colors for the building walls with bright
accents for the railing and fenestration framing and a dark color for the roof. The ARC should
decide if the proposed building colors are acceptable, or provide specific direction on how the
building colors should be modified.
D. Landscaping
ARC direction was to: revise the preliminary landscape plan with landscaping along the railroad
and parking; install deciduous trees along the parking lot for solar access; and to provide
adequate protection for the large Oak tree on Pismo Street and the pepper tree on Buchon Street.
A landscape concept plan was submitted with the revised plans. Landscaping is proposed
adjacent to the buildings, within the parking lot, along Pismo Street and along the Railroad right-
of-way. Landscaping will consist of three different types of ground cover, flowering vines, a mix
of low and medium height shrubs, and a variety of evergreen and deciduous trees, including
Melaleuca (Cajeput) trees, Chinese Pistache and Coast Redwood. The proposed location and
plant species are shown on the preliminary landscape plan (Sheet L-1 of the project plans).
Landscape planters will be delineated with a 6-inch high concrete curb.
Project plans do not show the existing large oak tree on Pismo Street and the pepper tree on
Buchon will be preserved. Therefore, the ARC may want to ask the applicant for clarification of
their plans for these for these trees.
1-39
ARC 11-99 (Housing Autl._-ity)
Page 6
Staff Analysis:
Staff finds that the applicant has responded to most of the Commission's direction by providing '
a concept landscape plan with various plant materials. However, final landscape plans will
need to address the existing onsite trees.
The project is required to comply with the City's Street Tree Planting Standards and the
landscape requirements of the Parking and Driveway Standards (PDS). The PDS requires the
placement of landscape planters (generally 1 planter per six parking spaces) in all parking lots,
and that 5 percent of the parking lot surface be devoted to landscaping. Staff has determined
that the proposed project complies with these landscaping requirements and recommends
approval of the concept landscape plan.
E. Parking
According to City Code, housing occupied exclusively by very low or low-income households,
may provide one car per dwelling unit (Zoning Regulations, Section 17.16.060). The proposed
affordable housing project has a parking requirement of 13 car spaces, one motorcycle space and
one short-term bicycle space. In addition to the short-term bicycle parking space,bicycle lockers or
interior space within each dwelling or accessory structure(e.g. garages) should be reserved for 13
long-term spaces(one space per dwelling unit).
ARC direction was to consider reducing the number of parking spaces to provide additional open
space. In addition, the design shall explore the use of turf block for the emergency access drive
onto Buchon Street.
The original project provided 17 parking spaces, four more than required by City Code. In
response to the ARC direction, the number of parking spaces was reduced from 17 to 15 spaces.
According to the project architect, by removing two spaces, they were able to separate the largest
building into two buildings, to increase the rear yard setbacks and to enlarge the common open
space area.
Sta Analysis:
Staff finds that the project has been revised in accordance with the ARC direction.
F. Pedestrian Traffic
ARC direction was to consider using a deterrent to reduce pedestrian traffic on Buchon Street.
Sta Analysis:
The revised project plans do not include any fencing or other treatments that might reduce
pedestrian traffic on Buchon Street. ARC should decide if some type of deterrent is necessary
and direct the applicant to incorporate it into project plans.
1-40
ARC 11-99 (Housing Authl-,ty)
Page 7
G. Other Details
1. Trash/Recycling Enclosure:. Project plans show two trash enclosures with waste wheelers—
one at the end of Buchon Street and one at the northeast corner of the site. The trash
enclosures will be constructed of split-faced concrete block. It should be noted that the
Public Works and Fire Departments indicate that a tum-around' will be needed at the end of
Buchon Street, and that this tum-around may require the relocation of the trash enclosure.
2. Play Area: Project plans show a small playground at the center of the site, between the
buildings and parking lot. The play area will include a play structureand turf.
3. Lighting: Project plans show wall-mounted lights on the buildings and free-standing lighting
fixtures in the parking lot. The height of the fixture is not shown on the plans. The ARC
standard for site lighting includes shielded fights on poles with a maximum height of 20 feet
above grade (including the base) with an illumination range of 3 to 10 footcandles. Lighting
details show a decorative lighting fixture with a globe lamp which is consistent with the
design theme. Based on staff's past experiences, this type of lighting fixture without proper
shielding creates significant lighting problems and needs to be shielded to minimize light and
glare impacts on the existing neighborhood.
4. Signage: Project plans show a monument sign and directory sign at the project's entrance off
Pismo Street, but does specify a height or area for these signs. City Sign Regulations allow
uses in the R-2 zone one monument or wall sign, not internally illuminated.and not exceeding
10 square feet on each frontage of a multiple-family building, and one directory sign not
exceeding one square foot for each room or suite occupied as a unit or 16 square feet,
whichever is less. Signage will require a separate permit application. ARC should review
the proposed location of signage and provide specific direction.
5.. Bollards: Project plans show fire gate bollards. The Fire Department indicates that facilities
are sufficient to provide adequate fire service to the proposed buildings, but the manually-
removable fire gate/bollards are unacceptable. The applicant will need to coordinate with the
Fire Department to work out bollard details.
Staff Analysis:
If there is support for the project, the details could return to staff for review and approval at the
time that drawings are submitted for a building permit.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Fire and Utilities Departments indicates the services are adequate for the building. The
Public Works Department comments addressed the lot merger requirements, abandonment of a
portion of Buchon Street, traffic and circulation, parking lot design and bicycle parking.
Building Division has provided comments on building code and site grading issues. Comments
1-41
ARC 11-99 (Housing Autl.__ity)
Page 8
from other departments have been incorporated into the project design or included as conditions
of approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant final approval to the project with directions on building colors, the design of the building
facing Pismo Street and details to return to staff, based on the following findings, and subject to
the following conditions and code requirements:
Findines
1. The proposed project, with the recommended conditions and modifications, complies with
property development standards for the R-2 zone.
2. The proposed scale and design of the building will be compatible with surrounding
residential uses.
3. The proposed project will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the persons
living or working in the vicinity because it is a small residential project that has been
designed in a way that minimizes any impacts to adjacent land uses.
Conditions
1. Final project design and construction drawing shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans, as amended and approved by the ARC.
2. All of the mitigation measures contained in Initial Environmental Study, ER-11-99, shall be
made conditions of approval. Those measures are as follows:
a) The applicant shall submit a details soils engineering report as part of the building permit
application. The soils report shall consider special grading and construction techniques
necessary to address the potential hazards associated with the underlying sub-strata. The
report 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.
b) Final project design shall incorporate as many of the Noise Element mitigation measures
needed to achieve acceptable exterior noise levels for outdoor activity areas. Compliance
with the Noise Element maximum noise levels shall be verified with a noise analysis
performed by a licensed acoustical engineer.
c) Future site development shall incorporate the following as feasible:
• Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
• Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
1-42
ARC 1.1-99 (Housing Autl.-:,ty)
Page 9
o Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
d) The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site 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 plans must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director prior to
building permit issuance.
3. The three-unit building facing Pismo Street-shall berotated to be square to the street and
designed to comply with City street yard requirements and the Noise Element standards for
exterior and interior noise levels.
4. Project details including: final landscape plans, wall and parking lot lighting, signage, and
trash enclosure details shall return to Planning staff for review and approval at the time that
working drawings are submitted for a building permit.
5. A lot-line adjustment or lot merger is required to eliminate existing property lines through
proposed structures, etc.
6. A separate application must be submitted for the proposed abandonment of a portion of
Buchon Street. Any abandonment shall first consider the turn-around needs and include
reservation of that portion necessary for a pedestrian/bicycle connection to the UPRR (See
conditions under Transportation).
7. The termination of Buchon Street must include provisions for a turn-around, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Additional public right-of--way may be needed
as well as the relocation of proposed trash receptacles to accommodate an acceptable turn-
around.
8. The applicant shall dedicate an easement between the terminus of Buchon Street and the
UPRR right-of-way line, for public pedestrian and bicycle path needs, to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works.
9. Bicycle Parking; the. applicant shall provide short- and Tong-term parking for bicycles
consistent with standards contained in the Bicycle Transportation Plan, to the approval of the
Transportation Staff.
10. Railroad Recreational Trail Connection; As part of the design of this project, the applicant
shall work with the Public Works staff to design a Class I bicycle path connection between
the east end of Buchon Street and the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The design of this
connection shall be staked in the field.and reflected on the project's construction documents.
The bike path connection shall.align with the existing service road that climbs the bank and
connects to the flatter portions of Union Pacific's right-of-way.
1-43
ARC 11-99(Housing Autl.__Lty)
Page 10
The design of this bicycle path connection shall be the basis for describing a perpetual public
access easement through the street area proposed to be abandoned and across the adjoining
small triangular portion of the project site (needed to complete the connection to UP's right-
of-way). Both easement areas shall be of sufficient width to accommodate a 3.7 meter (12
foot)paved bicycle path, with a 600 mm(2 foot) clear shoulders on each side(total minimum
of 4.9 meters).
The applicant shall construct the small segment of the bicycle path connection from the east
end of Buchon Street pavement to the project's eastern property boundary.
11. Johnson-Pismo Street Intersection Improvements: The applicant shall contribute its pro
rata share towards the cost of any future modifications to the Pismo-Johnson Intersection that
the City determines are necessary to address traffic management or neighborhood traffic
management (NTM) issues associated with residential areas east of Johnson Avenue,
between Johnson and the Union Pacific Railroad. City staff's recommendation at this time is
that a traffic signal should not be installed.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
A. The subject property is located the `B" flood zone. Therefore, all new structures shall have
the finished floor raised at least one foot above the highest grade adjacent to the building
footprint.
B. Frontage improvement shall be installed in accordance with current City standards.
C. Street trees shall be planted in accordance with City standards and to the satisfaction of the
City Arborist.
D. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
E. Water and wastewater impact fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of a building
permit.
F. A water allocation is required, due to the additional units. Currently, a water allocation can
only be obtained through the water retrofit program. 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.
G. At the time building permits are issued, Water and Wastewater Impact Fees will be charged,
based on the number of units. The cost of developing an allocation through retrofit could
offset a portion of the required Water Impact Fee according to appropriate City policies.
H. The design of water and wastewater facilities shall conform to City standards. Additional
comments may be required following submittal of improvement plans for City approval.
1-44
ARC 11-99 (Housing Authl-.ty)
Page 11
I. The demolition of the existing structures triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral
Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main
prior to demolition 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 approval by the Utilities Department.
J. The site also contains a private fire hydrant, which does not meet current City standards.
Any waterlines serving private fire hydrants must be separated from the public water system
with an approved backflow prevention device, subject to the approval of the County Cross
Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz. Henry can be reached by calling 781-5567. The project
shall include correction of this situation.
K. A water allocation is required, due to the additional units. Currently, a water allocation can
only be obtained through the water retrofit program. 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.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 - Reduced-scale Site Plan
Attachment 3 - Alternative Site Plan(Scheme 2)
Attachment 4 - Letter from Studio Design Group, dated July 23, 1999
Attachment 5 - Draft Minutes for the May 17, 1999 meeting.
Attachment 6 - Initial Environmental Study, ER-11-99
Full-size plans were distributed to the ARC and are available for review at the Community
Development Department.
JShoa1s/ARC-/11-99-2(Housing Authority)
1-45
TABLE 1: Project Statistics and Code Requirements
STANDARD CODE PROVIDED
U.Q. JIREMENT'
Zoning R-2 R-2
Minimum Parcel Size 6,000 sq.ft. 37,548 sq.ft. (0.86 ac)
Total Dwelling Apartments 11 du 11 du
2-bedroom Dwelling 7 du
3-bedroom Dwelling 4 du
Maximum Density 10.34 du equiv. 10.34 du equiv.
with 25% density bonus 13.00 du equiv. 13.00 du equiv.
Building Setbacks
Building 1 (3-unit building):
Street Yazd(Pismo St.) 20 feet 15 feet
Side Yards: 8 feet
Rear Yard: 8 feet
Building 2 (3-unit building):
Street Yard: n/a n/a
Side Yards: 8 feet 10 feet
Rear Yard: 8 feet 10 feet
Building 3 (3-unit building)
Street Yard: n/a n/a
Side Yards: 8 feet 10 feet
Rear Yard: 8 feet 10 to 15 feet
Building 4 (2-unit building)
Street Yard(Pismo Street): 20 feet 20 feet
Side Yards: 8 feet 10 feet
Rear Yard: 8 feet 10 feet
Building 5: (Utility/Laundry)
Street Yard: n/a n/a
Side Yards: 5 feet 10+feet
Rear Yard: 5 feet 10 feet
Building Height: 35 Feet 24.feet
Max. Lot Coverage: 50% 21%
Automobile Parking 13 15
Bicycle spaces: 13 0
Motorcycle spaces: 1 0
Notes:
1. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 19, 1999.
2. Applicant's Project Plans
3. As a 100% affordable housing project, the project is entitled to a density increase of at least
25% and at least one other additional incentive(Zoning Regulations, Section 17.90).
4. Housing occupied exclusively by very low or low-income households, as defined by the State
of California, may provide one car and one bicycle space per dwelling unit (Z.R., Section
17.16.060K).
5. The I 1 apartment units have a dwelling equivalent of 13 units.
1-46
Attachment 1
R-2
,t
R-2
R-2 <
R2:
Vicinity Nhp 1330 Buchon &
N 1363 Pismo
A0 70 140 . 210 Feet ,SRC -11 iWaw
�
Attachment
dal e°
TRASH
mo ENCLOSURE
HONUHEN 56"
ELM— DIRECTORY SIGN
is
PROJECT SITE
TURNAROUND
SPACE
bP
EXT Ll&HTlN6
�.
PLPLAYGROUNDTMP'
TRASH
EXT.5 ENCLOSURELaIC�TLLWA4TN . .
rd ❑ - \
Tyr.
D1
PROPOSE ry ti
T
20 PI 5
4 4Ul
STREET
ABANDON
tu
PRNATE V�KV5
I-- FIRE .
rt/FeW� 45.TYP. BOLLARDS
7-
SITE PLAN Proposed Street Abandonment
�".WV
PISMO STREET STATION Shml Numljm of:I
# DGStudio Design Group SITE PLAN
a r c h i t e c t a r e
p i a a n i a 9 Pisiruo Street StAtion
h a I I h c 641 Higuera St.,Suite 303 San Luis Obispo, California
D'.By:
Ianv
C 0 . a . a
: • * I San La 93401 I DUWW: -b—@-I
C3
Attachment 3
N�•
= o
0� N U)
W
w =
U Z
� O
to
�sLLI W.
W
a
um e
.LF °. Sa
v9 -
CL
1
b �
Q
/ \ n
/ z
1-49
SDG Attachment 4
architecture
p l a n n i n g
h e a I I h c a r e
c o m m e r c i a l
July 23, 1999
Architectural Review Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Pismo Street Station
Honorable Architectural Review Commissioners:
We have redesigned the above referenced project, taking into consideration the
recommendations made at the May 17 ARC meeting. The following is an
explanation of the changes we have made to the project.
We explored several alternate site layouts as requested - specifically, placing the
units closer to the railroad and farther from the residences. The placement of the
units in these alternate schemes did not allow for a generous common space and
adequate separation of building masses. The building entrances were more
crowded and the sound exposure to train noise was increased. For these reasons
we chose to modify the original Scheme A.
By removing two parking spaces (as recommended by the ARC), and redesigning
the buildings we were able to separate the largest building into two buildings, and
increase the rear yard setbacks. In addition, the bedroom windows in the 'B' units
closest to the adjacent property were moved to the side of the buildings to eliminate
a direct overlook into neighboring yards. The laundry was moved adjacent to the
common open space as recommended.
The three-unit building facing Pismo Street was enlarged to include two 'A' units.
We did not rotate the building to square with Pismo Street because doing so would
compromise the front yard landscaping. We rejected placing the private fenced
yards in the front of the building. This would detract from the elevation most visible
from the street by eliminating most of the front landscaping and hiding the entry
behind the fence. In addition, placing the private yard in the rear of the plan
adjacent to the living area extends the visual living area for the tenants.
Because the site plan did not changed with respect to exposure to train noise, the
noise study has not been revised and the original recommendation that "no
5 t o d i o D e s i g n G r o u p A r c h i t e c t s 1L-50c
6 4 1 H i g u e r a S t r e e t S u i t e 3 0 3 • S a n L u i s O b i s p o C A • 9 3 4 0 1
805 . 541 . 3848 • FAX 805 . 541 . 9260 • s d g 0 s d g a r c h i t e c l s . c 0 m . 8rian Starr C 15175
Pismo Street Station
July 23, 1999
Page 2
mitigation measures are required° still applies. The noise consultant will be
available to answer questions at the next ARC hearing for this project.
We are proposing a new color scheme with two deep body colors and lighter trim.
The buildings will be unified by a common metal roof color throughout (refer to the
revised color board). We did not increase the eave overhangs as suggested. The
architectural style invoked - American vernacular farmhouse with nested steep
pitched gables - does not lend itself to deeper overhangs.
We are asking for final approval of the project as submitted.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
SDG
Tim Ronda
Architect
1-51
Draft Minutes
ARC Meeting May 17, 1999 Attachment 5
Page 2
missioner Stevenson stated that he believed that the City would be er served
with smaller sign with a dark background. He thought the propo d sign was an
improve ant
over the existing sign.
Ron Whisena Development Review Manager, explai d that the Architectural
Review Commissi could use the findings listed in t Sign Regulations or similar
findings to approve a exception. He indicated th a findings .under Alternatives in
the Staff Report meet the ' tent.
Commissioner Parker moved to prov he sign with exceptions. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Rawson. a motion failed on a vote of 4-2.
Commissioner Lopes moved t eny the sign ' exceptions.
The motion was second by Commissioner Howard.
AYES: Co issioners Lopes, Howard, Stevenson and
NOES: mmissioners Rawson and Parker
ABSENT: Commissioner Aiken
The motion passed.
2. ARC 11-99; 1330-1363 Pismo Street: Review of three new structures with 11
affordable housing apartment units, site development with parking, and
environmental review; R-2 zone; Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo,
applicant.
John Shoals, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
Commission grant schematic approval to the building and site designs with direction on
changes and additional information that should accompany plans for final approval.
Tim Rhonda, Studio Design Group, explained the design process and project
background. He said that they had met with City staff and neighbors on the project and
he showed the Commission an alternative (Plan "B") with the units closer to the railroad
tracks and the parking area closer to the existing homes. However, due to site
constraints, he felt that the proposed project was the best design.
George Moylan, Housing Authority, addressed the density, parking, and noise issues.
He also discussed the history of the parking requirements with reduced parking for
affordable housing projects. He mentioned that this project was needed in the city, and
he felt it was a good location.
The Public Hearing was opened.
1-52
Draft Minutes
ARC Meeting May 17, 1999
Page 3
Pete Stenos felt the project was setting a precedence. He believed that the Zoning
Regulation standards do not apply to the property because the lay-out of the site is
difficult given its irregular shape. The major issues are: proximity to the rear property
line of the existing homes, traffic and safety issues on Johnson & Buchon Streets,
neighborhood compatibility, and obstruction of views to the mountains. He felt that the
project could be designed more effectively if some of the units were accessed from
Buchon Street and a larger common area were provided at the center of the site. He
felt that traffic on Johnson Street could be improved with synchronized lights.
Rich Hamlin, 1343 Pismo, felt the two-story units would cause problems with privacy,
generate noise and block views to the hills. He indicated that traffic and parking was an
existing problem and suggested a further study of Buchon Street and Johnson Avenue.
Evelyn Tamaldge, 1408 Johnson Street, stated that in the 20 years she had owned her
property, the "Johnson Avenue Death Corridor' had 7 deaths, plus many unreported
fender benders. She felt the neighborhood was in a pocket with the stream on one
side, the railroad on two and the street out front with no parking. She reminded
everyone that many of the houses were built before 1926 and didn't accommodate very
much off-street parking and that there wasn't much parking for guests. She felt the
development with additional children in the area would be fine, but was concerned
about accidents. She stated that she had read the EIR and it said that the impact was
not significant, but she felt that if children got smashed on Johnson it would be
significant.
Linda Shotwell, Johnson Street, agreed with her neighbor's comments. She also felt
the bike lane was not a good decision and that Johnson and Buchon was a bad
intersection.
Owen Bits concurred with the other neighbors' comments.
Jim Hanson, Public Works Department, stated that with all of the development
proposed in the area and the expansion of cross-town connections, some relief should
be provided. He felt the additional traffic generated at this location would be no more
than other projects. He explained that smaller projects that generate 20-100 trips a day
contribute to traffic impact fees to improve locations when they warrant improvement.
He discussed a report that was completed a few months back that showed the average
speed had gone down since 1990 from 32 mph to 29 mph. He stated that the peak
period tended to be when high school got out, but not in the am or pm commute hours.
He said that there may have been several unreported accidents at the Johnson and
Pismo intersection, but there had only been one reported that would have been
correctable by a traffic signal. He mentioned that there may have been a dog that was
hit and a rear-end collision that was actually past the intersection, but those type of
collisions wouldn't be eliminated by a traffic signal and he believed a lot of cases may
be increased because of people being forced to stop. After being asked is
1-53
Draft Minutes
ARC Meeting May 17, 1999
Page 4
synchronized lighting would be a good possibility, he stated it could work, but
synchronization sometimes increases speed.
The Public Hearing was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Parker wanted the architect to explore Plan "B" and look at putting the
units closer to the railroad and further away from the existing houses. He stated that he
could support the setback exceptions if needed to improve the project design. He liked
the style of the architecture, but felt the colors were too drab, the windows needed trim
and window mullions, and the rake on the eaves should be bigger.
Commissioner Lopes said that he thought the project was a variation from the existing
neighborhood and that it might be better to reduce the number of structures as well as
the size of the structures. He felt the noise study should be revised to show the noise
contours and sound attenuation.
Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager, stated that specific findings needed to
be made to reduce the units below what was allowed by the General Plan. He re-
emphasized that the Architectural Review Commission's responsibility was to review
the site and building design, not density and number of units allowed by the General
Plan.
Commissioner Howard felt the project was worthy and that everyone should do what
was possible to make it happen. She suggested repositioning the buildings so that the
openings don't face existing residences, and reducing the number of parking spaces to
allow more design flexibility. She also felt that one color scheme would be more
consistent with the neighborhood rather than three different schemes.
Commissioner Stevenson liked Plan "B", and the project's architecture. He
recommended moving the building (closest to Pismo Street and the railroad tracks) to
be more square with Pismo Street and creating a deterrent to help reduce pedestrian
traffic on Buchon Street. He would like to see the project more in scale with the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Parker moved to grant schematic approval to the project with the
directions stated in the Meeting Update.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Metz.
AYES: Commissioners Parker, Metz, Howard, Stevenson, and Lopes
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Aiken
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Rawson
The motion passed. 1_54
J
Attachment 6
��l�III�1111111�IIIIIII��I����III�h11111 VIII III II _ Or
WIS
® , ®.
9!gAlsaat%f af+ulj @MFYA aWiliVM L, 1999
INITIAL STUDY ER 11-99
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:.
Pismo Street Station
2. Lead Agency Name and,Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo., CA 934~01
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
John Shoals, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7166
4.. Project Location:
1363 Pismo Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Housing Authority of City of San Luis.Obispo Studio Design Group
487 Leff Street 641 Higuera, #303
'P.O. Box 1289 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
6. General Plan Designation:
Medium Density Residential
7.. Zoning:.
R-2 (Medium Density Residential)
1-55
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deal (805) 781-7410.
8. Description of the Project:
The applicant is proposing to develop a 0.86-acre site with an 11-unit multifamily
housing project consisting of four residential buildings, a laundry/utility building, parking,
landscaping and other site improvements.
Primary access to the site would be a driveway from Pismo Street via Johnson Avenue.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: '
The project site is a 0.86 cre irregular-shaped lot between Pismo and Buchon Streets,
and adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and tracks. The site is
generally flat with a less than 2% slope.
A portion of the site was formerly the City Water Department Yard, and consists of two
post-1950 corrugated metal warehouse buildings. The site also includes three pre-
1950 houses and a free-standing garage. The six buildings are proposed to be
demolished or relocated to another site to accommodate the project.
The surrounding area is primarily developed with residential uses.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Environmental and architectural review
11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement):
None.
1-56
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at leas,
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 X Energy and Mineral X Cultural Resources
Resources
X Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
X Water X Noise X Mandatory Findings
of Significance
-T7,
Air Quality Public Services
X Transportation and Utilities and Service
x �t
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.
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.
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 leas
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
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
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
F
1-57
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
April 26, 1999
,Signature Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager for Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name
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.
1-58
Issues and Supporting Informat,. , Sources sources Potel. Potentially ss an No
Housing Authority-Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 11-99 mitigation
Page 5 Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1 X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 1,2 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)?
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Land Use Element(LUE):
The 11-unit residential project is an appropriate use for the property which carries a land use designation of
Medium Density Residential (MDR)with a maximum density of up to 12 dwelling units per acre.
Housing Element(HE):
The City's Housing Element sets forth goals and policies to create and preserve affordable housing in the City of
San Luis Obispo. Consistent with the City's affordable housing policies, the proposed project is a 100% affordable
housing project which will expand the residential opportunities for very low, low and moderate income residents,
and expand the City's supply of affordable rental housing (H 2.2.1, H 2.2.2 and H.2.2.3).
The project has been designed to be compatible with the existing neighborhood in terms of density, size and
character. For example, the 11 units are divided into four smaller wooden structures rather than one large stucco
structure which is common in conventional apartment developments. The proposed development will not
adversely impact the existing quality of life for neighborhood residents, and will also buffer some of the existing
residences from the train noise. Final project design will be reviewed by the City's Architectural Review
Commission to assure that the project is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
ZONING REGULATIONS
The project site is zoned Medium-Density Residential with a maximum allowable density of 12 dwelling unites per
net acre. City Zoning Regulations allow multi-family housing projects in the R-2 zone. The project site is 37,548
square feet(0.86 acres)with a maximum density of 10.34 units. The project is the construction of 7 two-bedroom
and 4 three-bedroom units, which has a density equivalent of 13 units per acre. However, since the project is an
affordable housing project, it is eligible for a 25% increase in density. With the density bonus, the project has a
maximum allowable density of 13 units. Therefore, the project complies with the R-2 density requirements.
Conclusion: No Impact
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?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? X
1-59
Issues and Supporting Informat,. . Sources Sources Poter. Potentially Less Than No
Housing Authority-Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact
g Issues Unless Impact
ER 11-99 mitigation
Page 6 Incorporated
The project includes the construction of 11 multiple family dwellling units. According to 1998 California
Department of Finance(CDF)estimates, there was an average of 2.3 persons per occupied household in the city.
If the project were occupied at this rate, about 25 persons would live on the property. This additional population
and housing was accounted for in the General Plan's projections, and has been addressed in the Final EIR
prepared for the 1994 Land Use Element Update. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth into
the area or cause exceedances to local and regional growth projections
Conclusion: No Impact
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? 3 X
b) Seismic ground shaking? 4 X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 4 X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 4 X
e) Landslides or mudflows? 4 X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? X
g) Subsidence of the land? 4 X
h) Expansive soils? 5 X
i) Unique_geologic or physical features? X
Seismic Hazards
San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range
Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is
characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and
faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and
northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately
wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently
active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep.
In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and the Los Osos faults. The
edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limits line, near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a
recently conducted geology study (source 16), the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which
runs in a northwest direction and is about a one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions
of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of
the Los Osos fault are considered "active". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas,
located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,
and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of
"High Seismic Hazards", which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be
subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. To minimize this potential impact, the
Uniform Building Codes and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain
standing in an earthquake.
Soils
The soil underlying the site is a sandy loam known as"Conception loam." According to the Soil Survey of San
Luis Obispo County (Coastal Part), this soil has very slow permeability. Surface runoff is slow and the hazard of
1-60
Issues and Supporting Informat.. ., Sources Sources Potel. Potentially Less Than No
Housing Authority- Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 11-99 mitigation
Page 7 Incorporated
water erosion is slight. The soil has high shrink-swell potential in the subsoil, and requires special design
considerations for foundations and footings.
While the site is generally suitable for development, with proper grading and foundation designs, a soils report is
required as part of the grading and building permit applications, and recommendations in the report must be
followed in the final project design. Grading operations will be done in accordance with the City's grading
regulations and should not create any erosion or unstable soil difficulties. This process will assure that the soils
present no problems in the near-or long-term.
Mitigation Measure(s):
1. The applicant shall submit a details soils engineering report as part of the building permit application.
The soils report shall consider special grading and construction techniques necessary to address the
potential hazards associated with the underlying sub-strata. The report 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.
Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? X
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? 6 X
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved X
oxygen or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? X
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? X
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception X
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
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
otherwise available for public water supplies? X
Drainage
The project will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site which affect absorption rate,
drainage patterns and the amount and rate of surface runoff. To assure that potential drainage impacts are
minimized, the project is required to be designed to meet City grading and drainage standards. Site drainage
will be adequately evaluated with the grading and landscaping plans as part of the required architectural
review application.
While it has been determined that the project will not significantly impact drainage, the General Plan (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 groundwater recharge. The City's Architectural Review Commission will review
1 .61
Issues and Supporting Informat.. . Sources sources Poter. .Y Potentially Less Than No
Housing Authority- Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 11-99 mitigation
Page 8 Incorporated
the final project design for incorporation of these measures into the project.
Flooding
According to the Flood Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A.) Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the property is
located in the "B" flood zone. Therefore, all new structures shall have the finished floor raised at least one foot
above the highest grade adjacent to the building footprint. Compliance with the City's Flood Prevention and
Damage Regulations will insure that the flooding impacts are less than significant.
Conclusion: Less than Significant
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance 7 X
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
Short-term Impacts:
During project construction, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and
grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy duty construction equipment.
Compliance with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec.
7004 (b)) will adequately mitigate short-term impacts. No further mitigation is necessary.
Long-term Impacts:
San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM,, (fine particulate matter 10
microns or less in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment
pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The
1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution
Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed
to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use.
Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
According to the CEO.A Air Quality Handbook, land uses that cause the generation of 10 or more pounds pe
day (PPD) of reactive organic gases, oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter have the
potential to affect air quality significantly. A 50 unit apartment complex generates over 10 pounds of these
pollutants.
The project size (11 apartment units) is below thresholds contained in the APCD's"CEQA Air Quality
Handbook" for generating significant amounts of emissions. Therefore, the project will not result in
significant impact on long-term air quality. However, the project will incorporate features such as require
bicycle parking that will achieve the long-term goals of typical air quality mitigation measures to reduce
motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents.
Conclusion: Less than Significant
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 7,15 X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp 15
I curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X
1 -62
Issues and Supporting Informat..-., Sources sources Poten. .y Potentially Less Than No
Housing Authori - Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact
9 Issues Unless Impact
-ER 11-99 mitigation
Page 9 Incorporated
(e.g. farm equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 1 X
e) Huards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan) X
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Existing Conditions:
Access to the project site is provided by Pismo Street and Buchon Street from Johnson Avenue. The City's
General Plan Circulation Element designates Johnson Avenue as an Arterial between Monterey Street and
Pismo Street, and as a Residential Arterial between Pismo Street and Orcutt Road. Residential Arterials are
bordered by residential property where preservation of neighborhood character is as important as providing
for traffic flow and where speeds should be controlled. They have a desired level of service (LOS) of "D"
and a desired maximum speed of 35 miles per hour (mph). Arterial Streets provide circulation between
major activity centers and residential areas. Pismo and Buchon Streets are both designated as Residential
Collectors. Residential Collectors collect traffic from residential areas and channel it to arterials. They have
a desired maximum speed of 35 mph, a desired traffic volume of 3,000 average daily trips and two travel
lanes. According to the Circulation Element, Pismo Street (between Higuera and Johnson Avenue) has a
traffic volume of about 4,200 average daily trips, Buchon Street (from High to Johnson) about 5,300
average daily trips, and Johnson Avenue operates at a level of service of "A." It should also be noted that
even though Pismo and Buchon Streets carry more than the desired volume of trips, both streets continue
operate at LOS "A." City Engineering indicates that all three of these streets are operating at acceptable
levels of service (LOS).
Project-specific Traffic Impacts:
According to the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (sixth edition),
apartments generate approximately 6.6 average daily trips (ADT) per dwelling unit, and .65 p.m. peak hour
trips (PPHT) per dwelling unit. Based on the trip generation estimates, the project would generate
approximately 73 ADT and about 7 PPHT.
The project will contribute to a slight increase in traffic on Pismo Street and Johnson Avenue. However, the
City's Public Works Department concludes that surrounding area streets can adequately accommodate the
project's anticipated vehicle trips without creating a significant change in the current LOS for Johnson
Avenue, Pismo Street or other roadways in the immediate area.
Primary access will be a driveway on Pismo Street with emergency access only from Buchon Street. The
project is proposing to abandon the Pismo Street right-of-way in front of the property. The Public Works
Department indicates that abandoning this right-of-way and not allowing through access will not cause
significant circulation problems, but indicates that a street abandonment is a separate permit process.
Cumulative Traffic Impacts:
The project will incrementally contribute to cumulative traffic on local roadways. Cumulative impacts are
addressed by the payment of traffic impact fees established by the Circulation Element and later codified by
ordinance.
1 -63
Issues and Supporting Informat.. . Sources Sources Poter. Potentially Less Than No
Housing Authority- Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact
g Issues Unless Impact
ER 11-99 mitigation
Page 10 Incorporated
Johnson Avenue/Pismo Street Intersection:
During February through June of 1998, the City Council held a series of public hearings to adopt
Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Guidelines for the City of San Luis Obispo. At those hearings,
many of the residents who live in the neighborhood expressed concerns about the safety of motorist an
pedestrians crossing Johnson Avenue at this intersection and how new development planned in the are
might increase traffic safety concerns. As a result of that testimony, the City Council directed the Public
Works Department staff to study the Johnson Avenue/Pismo Street intersection and to consider the
potential for installation of a traffic signal.
A detailed traffic signal warrants analysis was conducted for the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Pism
Street during January and February of 1999. The warrant analysis analyzed pedestrian activity, collision
history and delay of vehicles entering the intersection from all approaches. Traffic from the proposed project
was considered in traffic signal warrants analysis.
The Public Works Department staff concluded that a traffic signal at the Johnson Avenue/Pismo Street
intersection is not warranted, at this time, for the following reasons: 1) pedestrian activity is negligible—a
total of 19 pedestrians were observing crossing Johnson Avenue and Pismo Street during peak pedestria
and vehicle traffic at this intersection; 2) the number of traffic collisions has been minimal with only on
collision reported between 1995 and 1998; 3) there is little or no delay for motorist as there are adequate
gaps in traffic on Johnson Avenue which provide opportunities to make left turns, except for a short perio
during peak traffic periods; and 4) the installation of a traffic signal will increase traffic delays on other
approaches (southbound on Johnson Avenue) to the intersection during the majority of the day. A copy o
the Public Works Department's findings and conclusions are attached.
PARKING
Automobile Parking:According to City Code, housing occupied exclusively by very low or low-income
households, may provide one car per dwelling unit(Zoning Regulations, Section 17.16.060). The proposed
affordable housing project has a parking requirementof 13 car spaces. Project plans show 15 car parking spaces
which meets City standards.
Bicycle and Motorcycle Parking: The project is required to provide one bicycle and one motorcycle space. In
addition to the short-term bicycle parking space,bicycle lockers or interior space within each dwelling or accessory
structure(e.g.garages)should be reserved for 13 long-term spaces(one space per dwelling unit). Project plans do
not shown any bicycle or motorcycles spaces, and must be revised to comply with the Zoning Regulations and the
City's Bicycle and Transportation Plan. Compliance with the City's parking space regulations will assure that
no significant parking impacts result from construction of the project.
Conclusion: Less than Significant
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or 8 X
birds)?
a) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 8 X
b) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? 8 X
r c) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? 8 X
1 -64
Issues and Supporting Informal_ Sources Sources Potei. .y Potentially Less Than No
HOUSIn Authority-Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact
Housing Issues Unless Impact
ER 11-99 mitigation
Page 11 Incorporated
d) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8 X
According to the City's Informational Atlas.Maps, the site is not within any known riparian habitat or wildlife
migration corridor. Therefore, no endangered, threatened or rare species of plants or animals are expected to
exist on the site.
Conclusion: No Impact
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 9 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? 9 X
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?
Energy
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 maxirnum use of passive
means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying or,
mechanical systems to maintain comfort.
To avoid using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner, the following standard mitigation is
recommended:
Mitigation Measure:
1. Future site development shall incorporate the following as feasible:
• Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
• Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
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
1 -65
Issues and Supporting Informa. .i Sources Sources Pote. y Potentially less Than No
Authority- Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact
Housing � tiIssues Unless Impact
ER 11-99 mitigation
Page 12 Incorporated
The project will not have an impact on public safety because the site does not contain any known hazardou
substances and is not located in an area of high risk.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? 10 X
b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels as
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 10 X
Element?
STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES
No stationary noise impacts are expected to occur with development of the site because it is not located in
near a stationary noise source.
TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES
Railroad Noise
According to the Noise Contour Map in the Noise Element, the project site may be impacted by noise from
trains on the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) railroad tracks. The noise contour map shows the 60
decibels (dB) Ldn noise contour at 115 feet from the center of the train tracks, increasing to about 352 feet
with future railroad operations. The map also shows the 65 dB Ldn noise contour at. 53 feet increasing to
163 feet with future railroad operations. Future noise contours are based on 10 freight and four passenger
trains per day.
In May of 1999, a noise analysis was conducted on the site to assess the project's exposure to traffic and
railroad noise, and to develop proper noise mitigation measures. The noise analysis concludes that the
project complies with the Noise Element's maximum noise levels and that no further mitigation is necessary.
A copy of the noise analysis is attached.
Conclusion: Less than Significant
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
govemment 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
Fire: According to the City's Fire Department, the public distribution mains are adequate to serve the
proposed land use with the additional protection of automatic fire sprinklers which are required as part of th
project.
Schools: The proposed development will contain 11 apartments. In San Luis Obispo, according to State of
Califomia Department of Finance estimates, the average household size is 2.3 persons. If all 11 units were
occupied, the projected population of this project 11 X 2.3 = 25. According to census figures, approximately
13.8% of the city's population is aged seventeen or younger. Therefore, we would expect to find 25 X 13.88% =
3.5 (rounded to 4) school-age children living in this development. The number may actually be slightly higher
because the housing units of this particular type tends to attract young families.
1 66
Issues and Supporting Informa. Sources sources Potel J Potentially Less Than No
Housing Authority -Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact
g � Issues Unless Impact
ER 11-99 mitigation
Page 13 Incorporated
The school districts in this state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school
construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65995 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a
development or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of
inadequate school facilities. Any effect that the additional 5+ children will have on school facilities will be mitigated
in whole or in part by the districts per-square-foot fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance for each
home.
Conclusion: Less than Significant
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? 11 X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? 12 X
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
Water Treatment & Distribution Facilities
This project has been reviewed by Utilities Department staff. Comments note that the project is subject to
water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of
constructing the water supply, treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to service it.
Water Supplies
The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development
and land use changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section
17.89.030 of the regulations states that a water allocation shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the
city water system for a structure or facility not previously connected; change the use of land or buildings,
whether or not a construction permit is also required; obtain a construction permit."
According to the City's Water Use Factors (adopted January 1996), residential condominiums (which most
closely matches the project) have a water use factor of 0.21 acre-feet per year. Based on this factor, the
project will generate about 2.31 acre-feet per year which will incrementally increase future water demand.
To receive an allocation, the property owner will need to provide water offsets through retrofitting the
plumbing of existing structures to save at least as much water annually as the projected demand, or
otherwise satisfy the requirements of the water allocation regulations through an approved method.
Compliance with the provisions of the Water Allocation Regulations and the water impact fee program is
adequate to mitigate the effects of increased water demand.
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
1 -67
Issues and Supporting Inform& a Sources Sources Pote. Potentially tens than No
Housing Authority- Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 11-99 mitigation
Page 14 Incorporated
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:
1. The new building shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site 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 plans must be submitted for
approval by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance.
Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
c) Create light or glare? X
The aesthetic concerns associated with site development will be addressed with the Architectural Review
Commission's review of plans. No further mitigation is required.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? 13 X
c) Affect historical resources? 14 X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? X
Archaeological Resources:
According to the City's map of archeological sensitive areas, which is based on information from the Central
Coast Historical Resource Information Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara and previous
archaeological studies, the site is not within an archeological sensitive area. Given that the site is less than
one acre in size and is not within a sensitive area, it is not considered "archaeologically sensitive" and
additional study to determine the presence of archaeological of historical resources is not required.
Based on an assessment of available historic records and in accordance with Sections 800.4(a)-(d) of 36
CFR Part 800 governing identification and protection and protection of historic resources, it has been
determined that there are no historic properties that may be affected by the proposed project.
Conclusion: No Impact
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? X
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
The 11 apartments (13 dwelling units) will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational
facilities. However, given the size of the project and expected number of people, no significant recreational
impacts are expected to occur with development of the site.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
1 -68
Issues and Supporting Informa. .t Sources Sources Pote, I Potentially LcssThan No
Housing Authority-Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 11-99 mitigation
Page 15 Incorporated
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, X
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal 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 areas
checked in the table on page 3.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X
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
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection X
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 specific to this project and would not be categorized as
cumulatively significant.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X
either directly or indirectly?
With incorporation of mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on
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.
None available
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scop
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and stat
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
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; Sundstrom 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 San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 1997.
2• City of SLO Land Use Element, April 1997.
1 -69
Issues and Supporting Informs i Sources sources Pote. Potentially Ixcsnan No
Housing Authority - Pismo Street Station significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 11-99 mitigation
Page 16 Incorporated
3. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990.
4• City of San Luis Obispo Seismic Safety Element, July 1975.
5. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County - Coastal Part, United States Department of Agriculture-
Soil Conservation Service.
6. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 060310 0005 C) dated July 7, 1981.
7. APCD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook", August 1995.
8. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 6" Edition, Volume 2.
9. City of SLO Informational Map Atlas.
10. City of SLO Energy Conservation Element, April 1981.
11. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, May 1996.
12. City of SLO Water Allocation Regulations, June 1995.
13. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence & Associates,
July 1994.
14. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995.
15. City of San Luis Obispo Historical preservation Program Guidelines, February 1987.
16. Public Works Department Memorandum to City Council dated March 22, 1999.
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
1. Mitigation Measure: The applicant shall submit a details soils engineering report as part of the
building permit application. The soils report shall consider special grading
and construction techniques necessary to address the potential hazards
associated with the underlying sub-strata. The report 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.
2. Mitigation Measure: Future site development shall incorporate the following as feasible:
• 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 building shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site
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 plans 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.
lShoals/Environ/InitialStudies/ERI 1-99(Housing Authority)
1 -70
Anu}-1, 1999
TO: City Council
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
FROM: Michael McCluskey, Director of Public Works
PREPARED BY: Wayne Peterson, City Engineer
Jim Hanson, Traffic Engineering Assistant
SUBJECT: Installation of a Traffic Signal at the Johnson Avenue- Pismo Street
Intersection
BACKGROUND
During February through June 1998 the City Council held a series of three public hearings to adopt.
Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTN)) Guidelines. At these hearings the Council heard
testimony from residents who live east of Johnson Avenue near the Pismo Street intersection. These
residents were concerned about the safety of motorists and pedestrians crossing Johnson Avenue at
this intersection and how new development planned in the area.might increase traffic safety concerns.
The City Council directed the Public Works staff to study this intersection, consider the potential for
installing a traffic signal, and report back. As a result of a heavy workload and the loss of several
members of the transportation staff over the past few months, staff was.unable to respond to the
Council's direction until now. This memorandum responds to the Council's direction.
Since the City Council provided its direction during these public hearings in 1998, the San Luis
Obispo Housing Authority has submitted plans to construct eleven apartments adjoining the railroad
with access provided from the east end of Pismo Street. The analysis described here takes into
account traffic increases from this new project.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A warrants analysis is the first tool used to determine if installing a traffic signal would likely improve
circulation at an intersection. There are eleven warrants for installing a traffic signal. If any one of the
warrants is met, the traffic engineer may consider the use of- traffic signal at the location to improve
circulation. When signals are installed at unwarranted locations, it is common to see an increase in the
number of collisions at that location.
A detailed traffic signal warrants analysis was conducted for the intersection of Johnson Avenue and
Pismo Street during January and. February of 1999. From this analysis the Public Works staff
i
concluded that:
1 -71
1ATransportation Division\TRAFFIC\Johnson-pismo62170A.doc
1. Pedestrian activity at the intersection is negligible, even during the High School commute hours,
and does not warrant the installation of a signal.
2. The number of traffic collisions at the intersection has been minimal with only one collision
reported between 1995 and 1998 that may have been preventable by a traffic signal.
3. For the majority of the day, there is little or no delay for motorists turning at this intersection.
Adequate gaps in the traffic on Johnson Avenue provide opportunities to make left turns, except
for very short time intervals during peak traffic periods.
4. Installation of a traffic signal will increase traffic delays on other approaches to the intersection
during the majority of the day and may result in more traffic collisions.
Staff recommends that the City Council not pursue the installation of a traffic signal at this time.
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS DETAILS
The warrants analysis of the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Pismo Street analyzed pedestrian
activity,collision history,and delay for vehicles entering the intersection from all approaches.
Pedestrian Activity
It was found that pedestrian activity through this intersection was negligible. During San Luis Obispo
High School commute hours,which is the peak for both vehicle and pedestrian traffic at this location,
only four pedestrians were observed crossing Johnson at the northern side of the intersection; 15
pedestrians were observed crossing Pismo Street, eight on the east side of the intersection and seven
on the west side of the intersection. Pedestrian warrants require a minimum of 190 pedestrians
crossing the major street during any one hour of the day, or more than 100 pedestrians crossing the
major street during each of any four hours of the day.
Collision History
A review of the collision history from 1995 through 1998 revealed a total of three reported collisions
at the intersection of Johnson and Pismo, only one of which may have been preventable by a traffic
signal at the intersection. Of the remaining two collisions at this intersection, one was between an
automobile and a dog and the other was a rear end collision that occurred on the far side of the
intersection.
Delay
Westbound Pismo Street
Staff did not observe excessive delays for the westbound Pismo approach to the Johnson—Pismo
intersection during the peak periods. The delay for this approach is so minimal because of the
extremely low traffic volumes entering the intersection from this approach (18 vehicles during
the peak hour). Additionally, vehicles entering the intersection from the westbound Pismo
approach during the pm peak were generally observed making a right hand turn onto northbound
Johnson,to avoid being delayed by left turning traffic. The development of the proposed eleven
units of low income housing on this section of Pismo Street will not significantly increase traffic
1 -72
(estimated increase of 11 vehicles during the peak.hour); therefore it is unlikely that delays for
the westbound Pismo approach to the intersection will change as a result of this project.
Northbound Left Turning Vehicles
Fora majority of the time there is little or no delay for vehicles turning left from northbound Johnson
onto westbound Pismo, LOS C or better (indicating a delay of less than or equal to 20 seconds).
During the peak hour for this location 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm,there is a 15 to 30 minute period beginning
at approximately 3:15 pm where the LOS for these left turning vehicles sporadically drops to LOS F
(indicating a delay of greater than 45 seconds).
Traffic Signal Analysis
The intersection of Johnson Avenue and Pismo Street.was modeled for existing conditions and with
the installation of a traffic signal. It was found that a traffic signal would be likely to reduce delays for
vehicles making a left tum from northbound Johnson to westbound Pismo during the 15 to 30 minute
pm peak period described above, thereby improving the overall LOS of the intersection for that time
period. However, a signal.at this location would create delay for southbound vehicles travelling on
Johnson Avenue all day long, while not significantly decreasing delay for vehicles making a left tum
from Johnson Avenue onto Pismo Street during this remaining portion of the day.
Traffic signals should only be installed at locations where there is a need for additional control of
vehicle and pedestrian traffic either for safety or efficiency. Signals installed at inappropriate
locations generally increase the number of collisions at these locations and decrease the efficiency of
circulation. A common misconception is that traffic signals reduce the number of collisions at a
location; this is not normally found to be the case.. Instead, it is generaHy found that traffic signals
reduce the severity of the collisions at a location: the number of right angle collisions is generally
reduced, but the number of rear end collisions increases. A high rate of right angle collisions, five or
more in a twelve-month period, is indicative of a location that may be unproved by some form of
traffic control device. Excessive delay for a substantial. amount of minor street traffic is also
indicative of a location that would benefit from a traffic control device. A high rate of right angle
collisions, combined with excessive minor street delay is indicative of a location where drivers are
choosing to perform unsafe driving maneuvers because they feel unable to enter the major street in a
safer manner—such locations could likely be improved if they were signalized.
The intersection of Johnson Avenue and Pismo Street does not exhibit these characteristics at this
time. While there is a short period of time where there is a significant delay for vehicles turning left
from northboundJohnson onto westbound Pismo, the extent of this delay is minimal. It is common
when delay is truly excessive that there is an increase in right angle collisions as frustrated drivers
attempt to unsafely tum across opposing traffic. This is clearly not the case, as only one right angle
collision was reported during the last three years. Therefore, it is felt that the installation of a traffic
signal at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Pismo Street would be likely to decrease the overall
efficiency and safety of the intersection.
There are several locations in the City that more closely fit the conditions described above for traffic
signal installation. With limited funding for the installation of traffic signals, the money that is
available should be reserved for the intersections that have a greater potential to be improved by the
installation of traffic signals. These locations have a higher incident of right angle collisions and
higher traffic volumes on the minor streets. Two locations staff is monitoring as potential locations
for a traffic signals or other traffic control measures are the Osos=Pacific intersection and*hPl*ef
Pacific intersection. It is important that the City reserve its traffic signal funding for intersections like.
these,that have a greater potential of being improved by a traffic-signal,rather than spending the funds
on an intersection that may be improved marginally,or not,at all.
Conclusion
Based on the information gathered during the analysis of the intersection of Johnson Avenue and
Pismo Street, it is believed that a while a traffic signal would improve the peak operation of this
intersection, it would deteriorate the operation of the intersection during the remaining portion of the
day: Experience shows that it is likely that there would be do increase in the number of collisions at
this location with the installation of a traffic signal. Additionally;the gains in pedestrian circulation
with the installation of a signal are minimal. Weighing the potential gain in circulation during the
short pm peak period,versus the monetary cost of the installation of a traffic signal and the potential
decreases in traffic operation-for the remaining hours of the day, it is recommended that a signal not
be installed at the intersection of Johnson Avenue and Pismo Street at this time:
1 -74
19a'i y : i:4a.M )lig ?.F.LHIIt"IJ III' - 19Q. p_. .; r .
Krause Englneeritig Services
Studio Design Group May 10, 1999
641 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Attn: Tim Ronda
Subj: Transportation Noise Study
Pismo Street Station, San Luis Obispo
InM&cd6
The following report describes the method and results of a recent study made to verify the severity
of transportation noise exposure at the subject site and assess the possible need for noise mitigation
measures. The report, based on the results of recent noise measurement surveys made at and near
the site, concludes that noise exposures are less than 60 dB Ldn and no mitigation is required.
The project consists of an eleven unit apartment complex proposed for a site at the east ends of
Pismo and Suction Streets in San Luis Obispo,located as shown rn Figure 1. Unit arrangements
in relation to the railroad line are shown in site plan Figure 2. The railroad has a single track
located on a berm at an elevation slightly above the site. The adjoining properties on the west side
are existing residences; adjoining prop to the east is the railroad right of way, beyond which are
San Luis ve and San Luis Obispo g School,
Noise Metrics
Sound is a form of energy consisting of small air pressure variations which spread outward from a
source. Sound is described by three variables:magnitude, frequency,and duration. Sound
magnitude is measured using a decibel(dB) scale to describe the relative intensity of acoustical
pressure waves. Frequency refers to the number of times per second the air pressure oscillates,
and is measured in Hertz(Hz).
The subjective impression of a given sound is a function of both magnitude and frequency, and is
called loudness. Loudness is measured using a frequency weighting scale(A-weighting)which
relates physical measurements to expected human response. Noise is defined as unwanted or
objectionable sound,and is rated using A-weighted sound levels expressed in dB.
Annoyance due to noise is associated with how often the noise is present and how long it persists,
as well as how loud it is. The variation of time-varying noise is quantified"a term called
Equivalent Sound Levet(Leg), which describes the average noise level over a given time period.
The figure of merit used to describe traffic noise exposure is Ldn,the Day/Night Average Sound
Level. Ldn uses hourly i eq's, with the addition of a 10 dB penalty for the nighttime hours
between 10:00 PM and 7:06 AM.
6086 Gary PI. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 548-8169 FAX 5468338
1 -75
Transportation Noise Study
Pismo Street Station
Page 2
Noise Bxoosure
New development of residences is not permitted in areas with transportation noise levels above
60 Ldn,unless the project design includes effective mitigation measures to reduce noise in
outdoor activity areas to 60 Ldn or less and in interior spaces to 45 Ldn or less. Where it is not
possible to reduce outdoor activity areas to 60 Ldn,an exterior noise level of up to W Ldn may
be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented
and interior noise levels are in compliance. Outdoor noise levels of up to 70 Ldn are allowed for
parks and outdoor recreation areas.
Noise exposure of proposed sites is determined where feasible by field sound measurement
surveys,or by reference to Noise Element contour prediction maps based on a generalized study
of rail and road traffic in the area. The generalized predictions neglect site-specific conditions
such as local terrain and barrier effects,or unusual local traffic conditions, and thus are often
conservative.
The noise predictions indicate that future railroad noise levels at the project site may be greater
than 60 dB,which would require mitigation for compliance. The actual noise exposure was
therefore measured to verify site conditions.
Railroad Q n
The Union Pacific Railroad line in the local area consists of a single track except for the switch
yard at the San Luis Obispo depot Present operations passing by the project site include two
regularly scheduled Amtrak passenger trains and an average of five freight trains per day. The
northbound Amtrak passes by about 3 pm and the southbound Amtrak passes by about 4 pm;
Amtrak trains usually consist of 2-3 engines and 10- 15 cars. Freight trams operate on an
irregular basis and usually have 2-5 eatgim and up to 100 cars;about half the height train
passbys are at night.
All trains stop at the depot,which is about 2000 feet from the site;the depot is a crew chane
point for freight trains as well as a passenger stop. The depot switch yard is used as a passing
lane for trains heading in opposite directions, Because of the proximity to the depot, trains
passing by the site travel at speedq of 20 mph or less as they arrive or depart. Southbound
freight trams are sufficiently tong that cars are stopped on the tracks near the site between arrivals
and departures during crew changes.
Train Noise Survey
Typieal train pass by noise levels were measured by the author during a previous survey(May
1995) at a similar location near Mill Street in San Luis Obispo. Additional noise data were
obtained at the project site May 4, 1999. Site noise survey data were taken at the location shown
in Figure 2;this is at a distance of 65 feet from the track centerline,representing the worst-case
noise exposure on the site.
1-76
Iie= l ' li4'i y :_]FI,9 JL"a -.r Mlit'�iJ
Transportation Noise Study
Pismo Street Station
Page 3
Results of the train noise survey are summarized in Table 1. Passenger train passbys had Leq
values of 70 to 76 dB,with an average value of 73 dB and event duration of 1.1 minutes. Freight
train passbys had Leq values of 58 to 65 dB,with an average value of 62 dB and event duration of
2.4 minutes. Background noise measured at the Pismo Street project site was 55 dB Leq, mostly
due to traffic on Johnson and San Luis Streets, and also due to student activity in the nearby SLO
High School parking lot.
Observation and spectrum analysis of train noise during the survey indicated that the dominant
noise sources are very low frequency engine exhaust tones and low frequency rumble of the train
car bodies as the wheels pass over irregularities in the tracks. Secondary sources of less
significance include high-frequency squeals of wheel contact on rails and occasional horn blasts.
Noise E=s=Analysis
Equivalent day-night overall average sound level at the site was calculated from the survey data of
Table 1. This calculation combines the individual sound energy contributions of traffic, freight
trains,and passenger trains together, with weighting factors propornonal to the durations of the
individual noise components. This calculation is based on the- following assumptions:2 passenger
trains (73 dB Leq for 1.1 minutes each) pass by each day; 10 freight trains(62 dB Leq for 2.5
minutes each,with half of these occurring at night and having the 10 dB penaltyty applied;the
remainder of the 24-hour da has a traffic noise level of 56 dB Ldn (about 1 d$higher than the
daytime Leq value measured.) Essential features of this calculation are shown in the following
table, with a resultant average noise exposure of 58 dB Ldn.
NOISE EXPOSURE
NOISE COMPONENT SOUND LEVEL DURATION
(Leq, dB) (MIN.)
PASSENGER TRAINS 73 2.2
FREIGHT TRAINS (DAYTIME) 8 12.5
—� FREIGHT TRAINS (NIGHTTIME) . 72 12.5
TRAFFIC 1412.8
OVERALL AVERAGE(Ldn, dB) 58 1440
1 -77
f!jQi l lyyy y : �-A h'';,HIIt'oIS 114'',;•
Transportation.Noise Study
Pismo Stroet Station
Page 4
Discussion
Noise exposure predictions listed in the Noise Element are significantly higher than those obtained
from the above analysis based on-sound survey data from the site. This is because the Noise
Element predictions describe general conditions of freely moving trains along the track corridor
through the city at speeds of about 40 mph, as opposed.to actual-train movements at the subject site
which are 20 mph or less during train arrivals and departures. The Noise Element also assumes
four.passenger.trams per day,when in reality two of these are trains.to and from San Diego which
terminate at the SIA station and do not pass by the project.
The worst-case noise exposure on the project site, due to both traffic and train noise, is less than
the allowable maximum of 60 dBIAn. Therefore,,no noise nii_tigation:measures are required.
Nick Krause, P.E.
Krause Engineering Services
1-78
i L)
�IGIt�)'1 Y MAP
tt� r c •�
r <
r
,6r = PROJECT
51TE
r
Tr
-
�,� �'! 1 pd T•try �9� t�
d r
DEPOT
KERPRA
�• � u�UO T.T -
r„e
1 -79
fid l ; . 19yy y : _r, .f,1 h;LhIIt'„Id IPd'
LOCATION FLAN
' N005E SUPVEY SITE
1 •� Y• I FI ,T, •\
PROJECT SITE
iul
IIL
1 ull
UJ I
in'
1
UI
M+
JOHNSON BLVD. 1.
4C-A( C- I� = loan
1-80
Gcb . ba £ 3a www2pb@ ac _ asw= r =
a@CY � _
� &
° o
\ 0 CV) QCL
L -
Im - a
§ z § # �
U) .
\ \ \ � wz § 2 �
§ Lo ~
co_ � �
22 ƒ mcy N � ®
. R � � ®CO
I
ao 2 _ eLL
\ co
N b
00
§ $
CL. e % a a m
03
2 § § &
R � « � z § N , . .
§ k b
b b o
� � R
� S E
/ § ) a: ccz
ui
0 §
§ I § § cr « « «
£ # § e8 § ] ± G 0
1-81
'ard Text:
�iCATION NUMBER: ARC 11-99
1363 PISMO,SAN LUIS OBISPO
R—iew of three new structures with 11 affordable housing
lent units,site development with parking,and
L. .mmental review.
HEARING DATE: May 17,1999
FOR QUESTIONS CONTACT:
JOHN SHOALS,telephone: (805)781-7166
05/13/99 16:03:42 Dstuart Label List Page 1
File Number: ARC 11-99 Source Address: 1330 BUCHON 100 meters
Occupants
OCCUPANT 1242 BUCHON
OCCUPANT 1251 BUCHON
OCCUPANT 1256 BUCHON
OCCUPANT 1258 BUCHON non-mail
OCCUPANT 1258 BUCHON# A
OCCUPANT 1258 BUCHON# B
OCCUPANT 1330 BUCHON
OCCUPANT 1333 JOHNSON
OCCUPANT 1335 JOHNSON
OCCUPANT 1405 JOHNSON
OCCUPANT 1411 JOHNSON
O '^UPANT 1515 JOHNSON
)PANT 1525 JOHNSON
O��;UPANT 1516 PENNY
OCCUPANT 1253 PISMO
OCCUPANT 1263 PISMO
OCCUPANT 1265 PISMO
OCCUPANT 1267 PISMO
Owners
LIVERMORE GEORGE TRE ETAL 1234 BUCHON ST
LAMB STEPHAN R ETUX 1251 BUCHON ST
SWANSON NATHAN P 8 PHYLLIS E 551 INDIAN TRAIL(for 1256 BUCHON)
SLO CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY (916) PO BOX 1289(for 1330 BUCHON)
AHEARN J DENNIS 537 CERRO ROMAULDO(for 1333 JOHNSON)
CRIPE MICHAEL L 6559 CORRAL DE PIEDRA(for 1405 JOHNSON)
IDING RH 2301 ROSE ST(for 1411 JOHNSON)
WEBER JOZSEF&XIOMARA 164 LINCOLN AV(for 1515 JOHNSON)
UMBERTIS RALPH E TR 20001 HANSON RD(for 1525 JOHNSON)
BRUNSON JOHN E ETUX 1516 PENNY LN
SOULES CONSTANCE M ETAL 1253 PISMO ST
PLEVEL DAVID S ETAL 1263 PISMO ST
45 labels printed on 05/13199 at 16:03:42 by Dstuart
1-02
AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
31 August 1999
City Council StOUNCIL ❑CDD DIR
City of San Luis Obispo G?tAO 0 FIN DIR
I� AO ❑FIRE CHiFF
,,. TTORNEY ❑PW DIR
RE: Affordable Housing Project on Buchon and Pismo Streets G-KCLERVORIG ❑POLICE CHF
0 MMMT TEAM ❑REC DIA
ft /X -
Dear Sir or Madam: O PERS D R I�
This letter is in support of our appeal of the Final Approval granted to the above-mentgned project y e L
Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting on Tuesday, August 2°d, 1999.
In short,we welcome the project, but as designed,we feel strongly that it does not fit with the character of the
neighborhood. The final approved design ignores the problems of parking that it will create in an already poorly
accommodated neighborhood; its density overpowers that of the existing neighborhood; it dramatically increases the
danger to vehicles and pedestrians at not one but two existing.intersections;its"face"to the views of the
neighborhood in no way fit the architectural character of the existing,the proximity to the railroad right-of-way is
not"within acceptable.levels", and that the findings of the sound consultant.hired by the Housing Authority is
flawed due to its limited scope and inadequate measures.
Beginning with our comments from the City Council Meeting which considered-the 1998 CDBG Program on
Tuesday, April 2; and continuing with our concerns expressed at the ARC meetings on May 1.7te, June 21', and
August 2°d, we feel that this project does not warrant the Final Approval it was awarded,due to many concerns
which remain insufficiently addressed, or due to items,which as residents,we strongly disagree with.
We,the Pismo Johnson Neighborhood Association, feel that the City Council's consideration of our appeal of this
project address the following concerns:
1. SITE DENSITY– As we have previously stated,the irregular shape of this site creates problems not
anticipated by the authors of.the City Ordinance for Density Increase Allowances for projects of this type.
Placing eleven units on this parcel continues to be incompatible with its.surroundings and the existing
environment of the neighborhood. The ARC has required, as a condition of final approval,that the design
- rotate the three unit building on Pismo.St.,which we:agree with but we also feel it must be set back.from
Y the curb to maintain the 20 ft setback consistent with ALL of the existing houses along this side of Pismo.
O m W This final concern was expressed by the Commision at its June 21'meeting, but was overlooked at the
LU C" � August 21'meeting.
U
U I _h Also the mitigation suggested by the Architect for the placement of the one-story building next to the
W w U existing oak tree will jeopardize and virtually insure the death of that tree,based on current
U') O recommendations by the City Arborist for projects similar to this one. We would like to see this unit
j moved outside of the dripline of this tree.
2. REAR YARD SETBACKS–The PJNA continues-to feel that the decision to restrict vehicular access
from Buchon Sreet creates an unnecessary need for the on-site road and excessive on-site paving. At the
June 21'meeting of the ARC,the Commission recommended the amount of hard paving be reduced,which
-4-1 was ignored at the August 2'meeting and actually the amount of paving has increased.
T
O Z
W CT) We object to the continued"flatness"of the two story unit rear elevations,with no overhangs and devoid of
_ U any significant architectural features and continues to present a very"Projects-like"face to the neighbors
W > on Johnson and Pismo. We acknowledge the designer's attempt to break down the mass of the units on
W ` F— Buchon St., but feel that they did not go far enough. The revised design continues to propose unprecedented
C o p building massing along the rear yards,and severely affects the privacy,quiet,and views of the neighboring
-J residents.
to
The rear yard setbacks of the three units with Pismo Street frontage continue to fall into the 65 dB contour
for noise generated by the railroad, found in all studies done to date,with the exception of a very limited
study done by the noise consultant hired by the Housing Authority. We object strongly to the location c
the rear yards of these three units granted by the Final Approval, and feel strongly that a more accurate
study be undertaken. The interest of the residems of these three units is clearly less important to the
Housing Authority than making those three units fit into the tight comer of the lot.
3. TRAFFIC—As was discussed by the City Council at the April 2°d meeting,the intersection of Buchon and
Johnson has a long history, but if this intersection is not addressed at a time like this,will it take more
traffic and pedestrian collisions and serious injuries to force the issue? In fact, addressing it now might
allow the developer to fit the 11 units on the property more in keeping with the neighborhood, provide less
paving onsite, more on-site parking, and more open space, and provide more safety for the pedestrians and
vehicles using the Buchon/Johnson intersection.
As we stated previously, by avoiding the problem at Buchon and Johnson, and diverting project traffic onto
Pismo St.,the impact of the design will also add to an already difficult crossing at the comer of Johnson
and Pismo,creating two dangerous intersections. It comes down to the safety issue. The speed of non-peak
traffic has increased since the removal of the bike lanes,and our traffic consultant suggests that"Average
Speed"criteria used by the staff member of the City Engineers office at the June 2V ARC meeting is
misleading without more information, such as traffic volume and times of day.
For the existing residents of Johnson Ave, backing out of their driveways is even more dangerous with the
removal of the bike lanes.
4. SCHOOL BUS CIRCULATION/PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ACROSS JOHNSON AVE. —As was
stated at the June 21st ARC meeting, a majority of this project fronts Buchon St. and therefore a majo,
of the pedestrians(adults and school children),will inevitably use the Buchon and Johnson intersection L.
access school bus stops, Scolaris and Rite-Aid, Mitchell Park, and downtown. Given the current public
awareness of fatal traffic accidents with school children and a history of reported and unreported accidents
at the Buchon and Johnson intersection and the nearby Johnson Ave railroad overbridge which have
involved fatalities,the PJNA continues to feel that the approval of this project must depend on the
successful mitigation of the pedestrian problem at Johnson and Buchon.
The Final Approved design does not address the recommendation from the June 21" ARC meeting to deter
pedestrians from the Buchon St side of the project from traveling across the Buchon/Johnson intersection to
access nearby parks,grocery and drugstores, and the downtown shopping area. We feel the final design
must mitigate this problem.
5. PARKING-The PJNA continues to feel strongly that the lack of parking is one of the most significant
issues of the proposed development. As previously stated,we disagree with the findings of the Initial
Environmental Study ER 11-99, prepared by the City's Planning Department. Under ITEM 6. TRANS-
PORTATION/CIRCULATION,where the staff conclusion was "Less than Significant". If this project
were required to meet existing City standards for normal development, it would need 26 spaces.
The Director of the Housing Authority has publicly stated that there are no guarantees that in the future,
this project will remain as affordable housing, which would potentially mean that these units would be
grossly under-parked. The Director also states that in similar developments throughout the city,that the
parking lots are not full.
The PJNA has spoken to the neighbors of several of these other Housing Authority developments and
consistently the neighbors report that a significant number of residents and their guests prefer street pa.
out of convenience and proximity to their units. We have alsp had conversations with the garbage company
and they have experience4 problems golfing access IQ 4WWstem dV9 to overcrowded parking areas at
several of the Housing Authorities other sites around town.
The revised design reduces the number of spaces previously submitted from 17 down to 15, even with the
additional area provided by the street abandonment on Buchon. We are troubled by this inability to address
our parking concerns,which have been stated as far back as the April 7th City Council Meeting reviewing
the CDBG Program proposals. The unique characteristics of this neighborhood as previously stated at the
June 21'ARC meeting are due to: 1. the installation of a bike lane on Johnson Avenue and the consequent
removal of 10 on-street parlang spaces serving 8 residences along this portion of Johnson; and 2. the
neighborhood on Pismo Street is already substandard in terms of parking and does not have access to
neighboring streets due to it being enclosed in a "pocket"by the creek,the railroad, and the unsafe Johnson
Avenue,which affords no parking.
The PJNA feels that the irregular shape of this site is further complicating the availabilty of street parking
for the development, since with a regular shaped lot,there would be street frontage to accommodate guest
and overflow parking. With the street abandonment, and the street tum-around on Buchon,there is NO
street parking for this project on Buchon, and at best only three on-street parking spaces on Pismo. It is
impossible for the neighborhhood,which is already impacted and substandard for parking to absorb this
project in it's current form. We would like to know how 15 on-site spaces and 3 on-street spaces are able
to accommodate 28 bedroom units and their guests?
In conclusion,the PJNA feels the Final Approved Design is flawed and that the approval process so far has
been inadequate to addressed the peculiarities of the site and the impact this proposed design would have
on our neighborhood, in terms of safety, in terms of the quality of our neighborhood;and in fostering good
neighborly relations among people living in close proxity to each other. We look forward to a well
designed project for this site and of the new neighbors who will move here, but feel strongly that the Final
Approval granted for this project is premature.
Sincerely,
PISMO/JOHNSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
Peter Sterios, AIA Robert&Ginny Griffin
Past President, American Institute of Architects CCC Former City Councilor&Professional Artist
Property Owner-1346 Pismo St. Property Owners— 1436 Johnson
Owen Betts Linda Shotwell
Business Manager, Laborers International Union Local 402-1 Landscape Architect;
Property Owner- 1356 Pismo St. Property Owner— 1418 Johnson Ave.
Rick Hamlin, P.E. Ruth &Keith Moles
General Manager, Bailey Bridge Inc.; Property Owners— 1420 Johnson Ave.
Property Owner— 1343 & 1337 Pismo St.
Ty& Denise Martin
Evelyn Talmage Property Owners— 1316 Buchon Ave.
Real Estate Management;
Property Owner— 1311 Pismo St. & 1408 Johnson Ave. Anthony Gomez
Property Owner— 1366 Pismo St.
Palmer Hewlitt
Locomotive Engineer, Union Pacific Railroad; Marlie Schmidt
Property Owner— 1353 Pismo St. School Teacher;
Property Owner— 1336 Pismo St.
Mary Fox
Property Owner— 1314 Pismo St. Mark Johnson & Ursula Bishop
Property Owners - 1220 Pismo St.
Rob Lewin
Fire Captain; Tim Andreatta &Kim Wreobel
Property Owner— 1336 Pismo St. Property Owners - 1265 Buchon St
William&Bernice Jeong
Property Owner- 1500 Johnson Ave
MEET ii 7 9 AGENDA
MEMORANDUM DATE_ -ITEM
City of San Luis Obispo
September 2, 1999
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer f
VIA: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
BY: John Shoals, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMISSION'S APPROVAL OF
AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AT THE EASTERLY END OF
PISMO AND BUCHON STREETS; 1330-1363 PISMO STREET; ARC11-99.
Attached for your information is a copy of the site plans that were reviewed and approved by the
Architectural Review Commission. Attachment 1 is a copy of the original site plan that was
reviewed by the ARC on May 17, 1999. Attachment 2 is a copy of the revised site plan that was
granted final approval by the ARC on August 2, 1999. A comparison of the two site plans is
provided in the Council Agenda Report.
If questions, please call John Shoals at 781-7166. EAO
C-CDD DIR
❑FIN DIR
❑FIRE CHIEF
❑PW DIR
❑POLICE CHF
❑REC DIR
❑UTIL DIR
❑PERS DIR 1
RECEIVED
SEP 0 2 1999
SLO CITY COURC-IL
Atta "invent 1
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
ARC 11-99, ER 11-99
(Pismo Street Station)
NA9
ry \
--
` ----- \
D�=
\ \THREE-UNIT :`! __ --�\ \\
BUILDING Yom• \\
I .
FF.24 1'
\ TRASHXeS
` \
1 \
�Tpy MONUMENTI6,I6N
- -•• DIRERORY�IGNry11'. N \ ` ` ��\` `• \\
1?' MAILVO
24
\ry 1 __ __•_ry \\�
PRO +ITE
\ry
i14,
jTil IIII
o.
BUILDING
f A•B�HCI PLAYEsR N �s �. t /
1 FF.240.62
Err.SLDG.
LIGHTING.
1 I
� D.Bi ♦ Or 0.01 (`—;�;•
1
FIYE-UNIT ^ \
BUILDING �\
J11 f A.B.40,00` PRIVATE YARDS ky
� W/FENLING.TYP/
1 / lu
1
m ;
Attachment 2
4
-- ------- TRASH
ENCLOSURE
ENT MONUMENT SIGN
DIRECTORY SIGN
MAILBOXE5
dd PROJECT SITE
L
E
THREE-UNIT
E] QUILVIN&
(ABHQ)
U11
I ............. ............ ......
I TURNAROUND
id) SPACE
Od
EXT Lb&H'nN&
PLAYGROUND ....... TRASH
OIL.
ricT.BLD ENCLOSURE
i ❑ LEI�z[ LIGHTING.
T'YP.
Tj IREE UN T.
R1 pe,
'A B A)
- _-_-
mP
PROPOSE
12015.F.
GT T
ABANDON EIT
PRIVATE RVS
FIRE&ATE/
H/Few- rI.TYF.
BOLLARDS
SITE PLAN Proposed Street Abandonment.
FISMO STREET STATION
6 D G Shmi N.mhm of:I
Studio Design Group 51TE PLAN
, r C h I t . C 1 • I e
p 9 a n n I n & Pismo Street Station
641 Higwra St.,Suite 303 job Nu�:
a I I h c a 1 0 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, California 0, By: KWN
r C 1 a 1 (805)541-3948 Dar. J"0.0"
RECEIVED MEETAGENDA
01 September, 1999 DATE `7 4 ITEM #
SEP - 3 1999
Mr. Ken Schwartz SLO CITY CLERK
Council Member
City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Mr. Schwartz:
I am concerned about the site plan for the proposed housing project
at 1363 Pismo Street. This plan unnecessarily places a 3-unit building
which includes two 2-story units, up against the rear property lines
of my lots at 1337 and 1343 Pismo Street causing interference with the
privacy, quiet, and views; which is contrary to the official ARC
guidelines that call for minimizing such interference.
Attached is an alternative site plan that causes far less interference
with the views, quiet, and privacy. This alternative plan offers other
advantages; it isolates the playground from the driveway and railroad
tracks, it places the handicapped parking adjacent to the handicap unit;
and after parking their cars, residents would not have to walk across the
driveway to get to their homes . It also places the units sufficiently
away from the railroad tracks so that train noise should not be a
problem. Additionally, these units can now have second story windows
on both sides because the privacy issue has been resolved.
Please review the alternate site plan, I think you will recognize its
advantages; and I request that you support its adoption.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely yours,
[FQ,�CAO
A:) CIL CPDD DIR
.^.D ❑FIN DIR
Q....- �_ ❑FIRE CHIEF
TORNEY ❑PW DIR
' ..nrC 5iu ❑POLICE CHF
Rick Hamlin, P.E. 1GM ❑RECDIR
P.O. Box 507 ❑UTILDIR
San Luis Obispo, CA uca�� ❑PERS DIA 147'-
93406
543-8882 /
RECEIVED
SEP 0 2 1999
SLO CITY COUNCIL
Alternative site plan
� [wC�OMtL
W /
N
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
w
5O
Cl - 3
A
N
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U
OLF7 ,o'
WAt DA ..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i
Present site plan
\ CNGLOSYRC
\
�NTR MO.L E.T$MS.
`' Ir PRG GTOrar S.b. \�
PROJECT 51TE
� b /
LL—j
THREE-UNIT -\
AUIL DIHb
S•KG
Z � ♦ Gr .v--•�
i .ra PLAYGROUND ♦♦ r•
GXT.DLL C.GLO`wRC
I ❑ � �� L16MTe16.
�L¢t
0 I
pC :,
S RC[*
1
--.—____________..��..���� VRIVATL YARD$' � �.�.t.6-'L•
II I m
SITE PLAN
PISMO STREET STATION
Sneei num r a�
Studio Design Group
SITE PLAN
641 n.guera S1..Suite 303 PUmo Street Stadon
• " San Luis Obispo.CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CSIIforula D• B• o+«
o .. n. • . < . IF MOS)$41-3648 D.r. Jwn B.B99
Developer's May 17th
site plan proposal
(now abandoned)
A
9 �
0 3 i yc D
IIL-1II. / Lo e /
i
� S
v �
O
� F
ti, a CL,
GAS
Oe
CCC\ j
ro`•-lY C° n � $°�pDw0> c 'y aU-
MRS ncm y $ •v_ �Ld 'mo. --s- M_
3
dyo _ np 'ooMOQpUDC u m C
C
' Wmi
d'� N L 0
i C p L L U C C .t�i N �• m Q ) C .c c.12CL
O L m
d a oU L 0= U
H m a ~ r Qd ai g E m ; .8 j v g m �i a L 3 E $
U ` mu
y j.Q p a C w m•� > pl c 0 p
.D- <. L= � U �_ c.m ac YOm ~ � �Q �i _ a
" �O C aL ` cac � w ` ° ESrStt � �_ g'aUg. U F+ mTTE �Y, � � . an
EDYa ca$ c �i [ y vtg W $ yew@E a=' u�
N . 2 3 a'7 3 4 d� 3 0 0 N N
� u O � 3. 4'm uV cD - - w E ca E' =Q m U U � O.
a E J N o° y m -E d�U s vpp E aTe 7{ =u e g O �y p g $Q Q E a n
1 vi
R. O O vI m N a m C 7 m d L m y _ O 11 1 �y.. y t 9p m y g� L 9 C,
m = O m D d 6 N Cq� d C W `L d L m r .G O
m u w` 'o E ` E m-° 7 = cn a ¢S J
imCa W Qd� pEoJ `m >•W umi � Q� c '� � y =` mT ~ E4m � z E `o � EdB. S
m.N m J U ? w E m E m i .'O= -0 c `o a J g O o `O G m L-- c
iaca ® 'm 500 0.9 a u E Em
E .2 ° ° E m w 2 L w ~ ° `m ° L :Z m c 9
oc _ cnaa .4 = a aH - 'w > c ° q 'n � c v c $ o S
Ld °Id AL �m Gt =U Fi-om 0.aQ rxm gmur vJ
@ ,Sa �cp tpf Orl4 _ $�� ppvdppEm_�C 9C73pc_,y�mw nwa, dD 3O'mS2 nEmww
_o
°> dm0. cc °as 3_c
rc
0 CL -0 CLcaam
C5 mEcC. cano0M 'T ` $
2 a � N0 mLU 3 V °am d C
Jm
a c o c mE $ Samc m
0 $`T @
g $ 0 La. v : 'x Vco�N$E Qc a �_ yS TE° Lo E° cgm- E = CL dE
amaZ2 A- ow �m !
. lzw- ogoE . _
d a N N lO y N V C m T T._ C A N b N r D Z T w L O °
may c- ami � IJila � = �. H orom.-.LEaEm r^ � 01 E ° � 3 c o c �'C m
y ya>'' a �� � mu npy1 mrdEvJ - c_ m jpOGD d.4 = =
C L N .0 N C E U L pno C t LN yy U d m 3 O 2 d CQ- 3 C ; d
w T a O V dIN -C vdi am 0 0 O_ ^ C > m a C
ndE t � o�c � $ g H ULu $�Yo $ 0 w d=pI co2 � _o= 9 ° E
y Q m m N m C w W N y 7 L U C N a
>c aim (p .ti �V � woa Arb 7 a- q� p13 7 m E
.V VQ DL N�d L'Ga -C. A m °-' >�2r C� m `.N O �. `IO Ct � C cu � gm & y
d N m dam mp m � m y'm 6 .�L>>..yC p�tvI Lm.� r, J .L^ p. O1 Oa w ._L^ od c adL_
T u m y L A C C N 10 D D C C O l]� � m 8 C G O g 0 QCL. W K _ > 3 a S U w L ' y
° ems r8m � Vnrm�= ��Ey; ' 2 ¢ O �z_ � g °ogaAL am
6._ - w
V L)
m m F ¢ > C U qd N C D y > 6 m_ .y.pm�..EF `d y J Z L G m U O J U m J 4 m U y'� CL
O N
N ' N C m E L `- N App h d N Oa D J V _O N O1 Z mN = T W b E D U N L N dUI
A d C L m C - m c E 0 0 0 T Z .0 c d p E E m an d L
U m So w .m % mm nen a m m m�UL w -a a 0 o, a. ct
Q U.�m V C 7� E U d L O O d a S O Q- V m m O w
d y E m m u $ g'=Q L¢£ m m Q E c J D d
N Cf Z d d O G-¢ N A ® Q
r dU m m O.UD
P
C C m m 3 L d C C L N L N VIZ m C.Y
dQ m > >momi. -E
O o
9ETmE anmr�
u °L W > �08°uv0 -cotocEoQmc
m .-..
W ::O L N L N cV`i 3 y N d C co V L cc d n m N O n>
,x -
�+J U d m N 3 x 0Lu -
O D _N T
p Tm T'� JLYA3C O OGC ZwCXXVm
w m > y >••d m A N N 01 Y V > 3 w C L Y
N d _
aa N g ELLJ d
u'=D G
A C w N �Q m 0 d
.V V N T° ° T y 3 A $L d L O d d > C O
` C R O d
UYC UCL UyN'V 0.3 T ' � ymE �yr
E c rn 3 L g r v r g = W g w A c b N _ c myar o
5-0 0 r E y 3 L m O. Tin L d y;y O C L m
■ a J V C C m U 7.0 d O T C T> m Ca J
N N J V Q 3 3 E J ■ u N U w 0 O.m 0