The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/16/1999, 1 - APPEAL OF ARCHTECTURAL 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. council M j Agcnaa Repout 1 C I TY OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Deve�llo,.�pm��ent Director r, Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate PlannerPS 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 upholding the appeal, approving the revised mitigated negative declaration and approving the revised project design based on the findings and conditions outlined in Resolution"A." REPORT-IN-BRIEF On August 2, 1999, the Architectural Review Commission approved the original project design (Attachment 5) finding it to be compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with the City General Plan. In August, the ARC's decision was appealed by the neighbors who expressed concerns with site design, density, privacy, traffic/circulation and parking. On September 7, 1999, the City Council considered the appeal, and voted to continue the project to a date uncertain with directions to modify the project design by: relocating a three-story building to protect an existing oak tree (on the adjoining property); considering the privacy issue raised by one neighbor; considering other alternatives for improved on-site parking; showing a vehicular turnaround at the end of Buchon Street; showing a connection to the planned railroad bike path; and maintaining all 11 apartments (13 density equivalent units)as proposed. The applicant has revised the project,and is asking the City Council to grant final approval to the revised project (Attachment 4). According to the neighbors, the revised project is an improvement, but does not it go far enough in addressing their concerns with density, parking and traffic. They are asking the Council to require further project changes to: reduce density, increase on-site parking and reduce traffic on Pismo Street as well as at the Pismo Street/Johnson Avenue Intersection. Staff is recommending approval of the revised the project because it complies with the Council's direction and all applicable City Codes. If the Council finds that the revised project complies with its previous direction, the Council should adopt Resolution "A." If the Council does not feel that the revised project complies with its previous direction or requires further review, three possible alternatives are identified: 1) uphold the appeal and refer the matter back to the ARC because of significant project changes that were not reviewed by the ARC; 2) uphold the appeal and deny the project design; or 3) continue the item and direct the applicant and architect to re-design the project to address any outstanding issues. Approval or denial of the project will have no direct effect on City funds. . 1-1 Council Agenda Report,Ake 11-99(Housing Authority) Page 2 DISCUSSION Project Description The proposed project is the development of the subject property with an affordable multifamily housing project consisting of 11 apartments (7 two-bedroom and 4 three-bedroom) 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 also proposing to abandon a portion of Buchon Street. 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 (see Attachment 3). 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 History This project was reviewed by the ARC on May 17, 1999 and 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 architecfure, neighborhood compatibility (i.e., privacy, building mass and scale), traffic/circulation,parking,pedestrian traffic and train noise. In August of 1999,the ARC's decision was appealed by three neighbors—Ms. Evelyn Talmadge, Mr. Rick Hamlin and Mr. Peter Sterios, representing the Pismo-Johnson Neighborhood Association. The neighbors do 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, privacy (rear yard setbacks), building architecture, traffic, school bus circulation/pedestrian traffic across Johnson Avenue,and parking. The original project was reviewed by the City Council on September 7, 1999. Council Concerns and Direction The City Council continued this project with the direction that the applicant address the following issues of concern: tree protection, privacy, parking, vehicular turnaround on Buchon Street, bicycle path connection, and total number of units (density). The following paragraphs discuss the Council's direction and the resulting plan revisions. 1-2 Council Agenda Report,ARC 11-99(Housing Authority) Page 3 1. Tree Protection Council direction was to explore moving the three-unit building southerly out of the drip line of the oak tree on the adjoining property to minimise impact on the oak tree. To eliminate encroachment of the building foundations into the drip line of the large Valley Oak tree, the building along the northwest property line has been relocated to the other side of the property adjacent to the railroad right-of-way, and the primary parking lot will be near the tree. This parking area will be surfaced with porous pavers, which will be an improvement over the existing asphalt paving. The revised plans comply with this direction. 2. Privacy City Council direction was to consider the privacy issue raised by Rick Hamlin. The privacy issue was addressed by moving the three-unit building to the other side of the property, replacing it with a parking lot and play area. The revised plans comply with this direction. 3. Parking City Council direction was to. consider other alternatives for improved parking (ideas included "double loading" and replacing the parking spaces, if possible, that were removed during the ARC process. As shown on the revised plans, the long drive with single loaded parking and emergency access from Buchon Street has been replaced with a shorter drive with double-loaded parking. The revised plans also allow for three more parking spaces, bring the total number of parking spaces to 18. The project is required to provide 13 spaces. The revised plans comply with this direction. 4. Vehicular Turnaround on Buchon Street City Council direction was to show a vehicular turnaround on the property at the end of Buchon Street_ The revised site layout includes a turn-around, for fire trucks, at the end of Buchon Street. The project architect met with the Public Works and Fire Departments to resolve this issue and to obtain approval for the proposed"hammer-head"turn-around. 5. Bike Path Connection City Council direction was to show the connection for the bike path through the property from the end of Buchon Street onto the railroad property. The revised plans show access to the future City bike trail system at the end of Buchon Street. 1-3 Council Agenda Report,Aict; 11-99(Housing Authority) Page 4 6. Density and Total Units In previous ARC and City Council meetings, there has been extensive discussion of the project's proposed density and total number of units. 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. The neighbors feel that the project is too dense for the irregular-shaped lot and is incompatible with other development in the area. The issue of density was discussed at the September 7`h Council meeting. While the City Council has the authority to require the project be developed at a lower density, there are specific state-required findings that must be made to reduce the density of the affordable housing project, as requested by the neighbors. Those findings are: a) 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. b) 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. " After extensive discussion, the Council members unanimously agreed that there is a need for more affordable housing in the city, and that the state-required findings could not be made to support reducing the proposed density. Council direction was to maintain all 11 apartments (13 density equivalent units). The revised plans comply with Council direction by maintaining the 11 apartments as originally proposed. 7. Three-Unit Building on Pismo Street Mr. George Moylan, Housing Authority, filed an appeal to have condition no. 3 deleted. 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. A majority of the ARC did not feel that it was necessary to rotate this building. This condition was inadvertently left in with the motion and should have been deleted. At the previous hearing, the Council decided that it was not necessary for this building to be rotated to be perpendicular to the street. Staff recommends that the Council delete the condition as requested by the applicant. 8. Trash Collection Tom Martin, Controller of The San Luis Garbage Company, expressed concerns with the previous site layout indicating that the one entry access would create problems with trash 1-4 Council Agenda Report,At." 11-99(Housing Authority) Page 5 collection. The Council directed the Housing Authority to modify the site plan to address Mr. Martin's concerns. Project plans have been modified to address trash collection issues. The laundry building has been relocated to the Buchon Street end of the site, with an adjacent concrete block corral for eight waste wheelers. The three living units adjacent to Pismo Street will place waste wheelers on the curb for collection like the rest of the neighborhood. The applicant has confirmed with the San Luis Garbage Company that this arrangement will satisfy their trash collection requirements. Neighborhood Concerns On October 25, 1999, the Pismo/Johnson Neighborhood Association sent the City Council a letter outlining their concerns with the revised project (Attachment 7). The PJNA continues to express concerns with parking, density and traffic. The neighbor's outstanding issues are discussed in the following paragraphs. 1. Parking The PJNA does not feel that the revised plan goes far enough in providing additional on-site parking. They suggest that with a minimal change to the site plan, four additional parking spaces can be added to bring the total number of spaces to 22. While there appears to be some merit to this suggestion, the changes are more substantial than represented. First,the three-unit building fronting Pismo Street would need to be replaced with a two-unit building and rotated to be perpendicular to the street. This issue has been debated with the ARC and Council, and both decision-making bodies agreed that it is not necessary to rotate this building. Second, the three-unit building, at end of Buchon next to the railroad tracks, would need be replaced with a four-unit structure. This is contrary to the.ARC direction which was to reduce building mass by breaking up the buildings into smaller structures. Third, the open space/play area would need to be reduced, which could affect the layout of the play area. There are very strict state requirements for play area safety zones. Finally, while there may be a need for additional off-street parking spaces in the neighborhood, the Council should consider if it is the sole responsibility of this project. It should also be noted that any of the vacant or underutilized parcels in the neighborhood are developed, they will be required to comply with City parking standards, which may help the neighborhood parking situation. Staff would like to re-emphasize that the project has been designed to meet the City parking requirements. The ARC's design was to limit what they felt would be excess parking on this site. The Council, however, indicated that parking should be expanded to 18 spaces, five more than required by City Codes. 2. Density The PJNA continues to object to the proposed density of the project, and is asking the Council to remove one unit. The ARC and City Council discussed the density issue at length. Both agree that there is a need 1-5 Council Agenda Report,A&%2 11-99(Housing Authority) Page 6 for more affordable housing in the city, and that the state-required findings could not be made to support reducing the proposed density. Those findings are: the housing development project would have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety; and there are no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than to approve the project at a lower density. Council was very clear with its direction to maintain all 11 apartments. 3. Traffic The PJNA is still concerned with increased vehicular traffic on Pismo Street and its potential impacts to the Pismo Street/Johnson Avenue Intersection. They suggest that the Council formally investigate widening the future bike trail bridge crossing San Luis Creek at the end of Pismo Street. The Public Works Department has determined that the project will increase traffic on Pismo Street, but will not create a significant adverse impact since the increased volumes are well within the capacity of the local street system. The project will, however, be required to 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 issues. CONCURRENCES Concerns of other departments have either been addressed with design changes or have been incorporated as conditions of approval. FISCAL UAPACTS 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 1. Adopt Resolution `B" upholding the appeal, and referring the project back to the ARC for consideration of the Council-directed design issues. The City Council gave specific directions on what was considered to be minor modifications to the design approved by the ARC. The revised project design involves what could be considered significant changes that have not been reviewed by the ARC. Those modifications include: the placement of the three-unit on the other side of the site near the railroad tracks, the redesign of parking lot to a double-loaded lot near the existing oak tree, the relocation of the common open space/play area to the center of the site and a new landscape plan. If the Council feels that the revised project involves significant changes that were not reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, it should refer the matter back to the ARC for review and approval. 2. The Council may uphold the appeal and deny the project design. 1-6 Council Agenda Report,Ak%. 11-99(Housing Authority) Page 7 3. The Council may continue the project. Directions should be given to the applicant and staff. Attachments Attachment 1 -Draft Resolution"A" Attachment 2 -Draft Resolution`B" Attachment 3 -Vicinity Map Attachment 4 -Reduced Scale Drawing of the Revised Site/Grading Plan Attachment 5 - Reduced Scale Drawing of the Original Site Plan Attachment 6 -Minutes of the September 7, 1999 public hearing Attachment 7 - Studio Design Group Letter, dated October 28, 1999 Attachment 8 -Pismo/Johnson Neighborhood Association Letter, dated October 25, 1999 Attachment 9 -Initial Environmental Study, ER 11-99 Attachment 10 - Robert Mueller, Fax dated October 14, 1999 Attachment 11 -Public Works Response Letter dated November 2, 1999 Bhoals/CC/ARC 11-9-2(Housing Authority) 1 Attachment 1 Draft Resolution"A" 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,THEREBY APPROVING REVISED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MODIFIED PROJECT DESIGN FOR 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 Sterios and George Moylan filed appeals of that action;and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings on, September 7, 1999 and November 16, 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 1-8 Resolution No. (1999 Series) 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. 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 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 Upheld. The appeal of the Architectural Review. Commission's action approving the project is hereby upheld, and the modified project design is approved subject to the following conditions: Conditions 1. Final project design and construction drawing shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans, as amended and approved by the City Council. 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. 1-9 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 turn-around needs and include reservation of that portion necessary for a pedestrianibicycle 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. 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 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 1-10 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page 4 On motion.of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed-and adopted this 16'day of November; 1999. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ori a . Jorgensen JShoals/CC/ARC 11-99(Res) 1-11 A tachment 2 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 REFERRING THE PROJECT BACK TO THE ARC FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COUNCIL-DIRECTED DESIGN ISSUES AND MODIFIED PLANS OF THE 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 Sterios and George Moylan filed appeals of that action; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings on, September 7, 1999 and November 16, 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 project design approved by the ARC requires further refinement to address design issues such as the existing Oak tree,neighborhood privacy,parking and circulation. 2. The revised project includes significant design changes that were not reviewed by the ARC. 1-12 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. Appeal Upheld. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's j action is hereby upheld, and the " �ect is directed back to the ARC for consideration of the proi Council-directed design issues. 1. Explore moving the three unit building southerly out of the dripline of the Oak tree on the adjoining property to minimize impact on the Oak tree. 2. Consider the privacy issue raised one neighbor(Rick Hamlin). 3. Consider the alternatives for improved parking (ideas included "double-loading" and replacing the parking spaces, if possible,that wereremovedduring the ARC process. 4. Show a vehicular turnaround on the property at the end of Buchon Street. 5. Show the connection for the bicycle path through the property from the end of Buchon Street onto the railroad property. 6. Maintain all 11 units, as proposed. 7. Modify the site plan to-comply with trash collection requirements. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote- AYES- NOES- ABSENT: The foregoing resolution Was passed and adopted this 16'- day ofNovember, 1999. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: orn4dWeyfri. Jorgensen V -V MoaWCUARCI 1-99(ResA) 1-13 Attachment 3 R4" Q �/� V/ Vnn'ty 1330 Buchon & N 1363 Pismo A0 70 140 210 Feet ,�C 11rin Attachment 4 _a Revised Site Plan i i i e 1 ava Y G orwxfNra1GN T �`K E Y b u ash 0 r.wc w t� taw I VmEE r \ L*KT I �\ e S ,(�Ywrwmr�or.\m .� ANY 7l T11.QIEAOR � usNrwo +I NNmmlatmfre iOfOrA14LrOMl ` aWarwoeAee AVgMN®Ip QAO{ �{� Ale W1A)11RW10KT. i �N'W,� 4 goo LL-1 � LAJ/N FOR WA6R \\ •� u PLAYEl 11T.WNL tai[1ta11IBp •ATP A2 $1 Al w.r 91 92 1wa• •av• � wol j,.d MA=K 90"M 4 YYg o T!Omio QrY Q•4 0 0 I ► reorosrnsitnr nwAi[TAma q m� m�n AaANOWNFM W/VN .M awwip WU 11Afd MiGm mll WiAmIW 11111 aWPYO 1 n n n SITS/GRADING PLAN tiGALt:.1" 00 O' SDGREVISED SITE./ GRADING PLAN Studio Design Group Of. architecture p I a n n i n e eat Higuera St.,Suite 303 PISMO STREET STATION 15 San Luis Obispo,84 93401 SAN LUIS ODISPO CA c o m p u t e r 805/541-3 A Snk: 1"-SO' visualization r �: Aftachment 5 Original Site Plan (ARC-approved Plan) ..\-- -------- - TRASH -=4 -- CNCLOSIII[E iQ PROJECT SITE THREE-UHM aLMLOM& N (AA+16) I.1U QI SPACZ exr.Ljs+rrm& M'P YCIPIOUND TRASH I EXT.. ENC4.09URE M. M p. IPP El I JP I IL'I M Rrr LN E 0 Z.2& PP t 1201 W. STREET AS U1 PRWATE FiRE&ATE1 BOLLARDS Q I iz 0 w SITE PLAN Proposed Street Abandonment PISMO STREET STATION DStudio DeWgn Group G SITE PI-AN . rchl teCt ore P I a a a 1 n PASM0 So-eet station h I I b 641 Higma SL,Sulte 303 San Luis Obispo,COk 9U01 S=lAds ObLVo� Callfoxw1ja Nu c • (80S)541-3845 J-861090 Attachment 6 1. APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S DECISION (ARC 11-99)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 HOUSING AUTHORITY- APPLICANT&APPELLANT: EVELYN TALMADGE PETER STERIOS AND RICK HAMLIN -APPELLANTS. Associate Planner Shoals presented the staff report. Mayor Settle opened the public hearing. Rick Hamlin,appellant, presented points in support of his appeal. He expressed concern about the impact of the proposed project to his privacy and pointed out that there are two windows that will provide a direct view into his home. He presented an alternative plan for consideration (on file with the City Clerk). Peter Stenos.appellant(representing the Pismo/Johnson Neighborhood Association), summarized comments submitted in his letter to the Council dated 8/31/99 (on file with the City Clerk). He reported that the Association,who is concerned for the health of an existing oak tree, hired an arborist to access the situation. The arborist believes, he continued,that the proposed building will severely impact the life of the tree. The appellant raised other issues of concern to the neighbors that include parking, noise,traffic,and pedestrian and vehicular circulation. In addition, he displayed a copy of letter by Tom Martin, Controller for San Luis Garbage,who expresses concern about access for collection. In closing, Mr. Sterios presented a list of seven (7)recommended design changes(on file with the City Clerk)and noted that the Association is in agreement with Rick Hamlin's alternative design. The following neighbors spoke in favor of the alternative design presented: Rob Lewin. 1336 Pismo Street Owen Betts,1352 Pismo Street Martie Schmidt. 1336 Pismo Street Ginny Griffin. 1436 Johnson Linda Shotwell. 1418 Johnson Nathan Strong, 1353 Pismo Street,suggested the addition of a traffic light at the intersection of Buchon and Johnson. Jim Aiken. Chairman of the Architectural Review Commission,responded to Council questions regarding the Commission's review of the proposed project and the alternative design suggested by Rick Hamlin. Brian Starr. representing the applicant/appellant(San Luis Obispo Housing Authority), addressed individual concerns expressed by the neighbors. He emphasized that to make the project feasible, 11 units are needed and commented that the alternative plan presented. eliminates porches,a critical design feature. He argued that the neighborhood is appropriately zoned for the density proposed,that issues of privacy and separation should not be placed on one property,and that the applicant will meet all noise mitigation requirements. In response to inquiry from Council Member Schwartz. Mr.Starr reported that plans to exit traffic on Pismo were based upon discussions with Engineering staff. Council Member Schwartz suggested that traffic exit onto Buchon Street. Public Works Director McCluskey demonstrated traffic accident history for the neighborhood to support staffs recommendation. George Movlan.applicant/appellant(San Luis Obispo Housing Authority),summarized the . background and spoke to the merits of the project He commented that the concerns of the neighborhood were taken into consideration as part of the design process. In response to 1-17 inquiry from Council Member Ewan, Mr. Moylan reported that access for trash collection will not be a problem as each unit will have an individual waste hauler to place at the curb. He emphasized that the Housing Authority is not asking for anything unique in density and argued that the occupancy and number of cars per unit will not be what others have implied. Mayor Settle closed the public hearing. Lengthy Council discussion followed. By mutual agreement,the Council identified the following issues of concern: e Explore moving the three unit building southerly out of the dripline of the Oak tree on the adjoining property to minimize impact on the Oak tree. a Consider the privacy issue raised by one neighbor(Rick Hamlin). • Consider other alternatives for improved parking (ideas included "double loading"and replacing the parking spaces, if possible,that were removed during the ARC process) • Show a vehicular turnaround on the property at the end of Buchon Street. a Show the connection for the bicycle path through the property from the end of Buchon Street onto the railroad property. • Maintain all 11 units, as proposed. There was a motion made by Ewanseconded by Marx to send the matter back to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)for further refinement based upon the comments made by the Council. Community Development Director Jonas advised that a delay of two to three months would be expected if the Council were to refer the matter back to the ARC given the present work load of the commission and staff. He commented that the Council's concerns were clear and proposed that the Council give direction to the applicant to work with staff on revising the plan accordingly. The motion was withdrawn. Vice Mayor Romero pointed out that Condition#11 in the resolution is redundant. There was agreement to remove that condition from the resolution. ACTION: Moved by Ewan/Marx to continue the matter to a date uncertain with direction to staff to work with the applicant to address design issues raised by the Council; motion carried 5:0. 1-18 SDG Attachment 7 architecture p l a n n i n g h e a l t h c a r e c o m m e r c i a l October 28, 1999 City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Pismo Street Station Honorable Mayor and City Councilpersons: We have redesigned the above referenced project based on the recommendations of the City Council at the September 7, 1999 hearing. The following summary explains the changes we have made to this project. To eliminate encroachment of building foundations into the drip line of the large Valley Oak tree, the three-unit building along the northwest property line has been relocated to the other side of the property adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. To accomplish this, the long drive with single loaded parking and emergency access from Buchon Street has been replaced with a shorter drive with double loaded parking. Moving this building also mitigates the privacy concerns raised by Rick Hamblin, an adjacent property owner. In addition, this layout allows three more parking spaces than the previous plan. The parking area proposed adjacent to the Valley Oak tree will be surfaced with porous pavers, which will be an improvement for the tree over the asphalt paving that currently exists under the tree drip line. Refer to the enclosed tree report by arborist Jack Brazeal for further information. The noise study for the project has been amended to address the three units which have been relocated adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. Since these units are no closer than the.previous worst condition -the three units near Pismo Street - no additional mitigation is required. Refer to the revised noise study for further information. This new site layout requires that we provide a tum-around to accommodate fire trucks at the end of Buchon Street. We have met with both the City Fire and Public Works departments to resolve this issue and have obtained approval for the hammer-head tum-around indicated. Access to the future City bike trail system has been indicated at the end of Buchon Street as well. S t u d i o D e s i g n G r o u p A r c h i t e c t s y 1_ c 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 • 4 0 1 805 . 541 . 384 8 • FA X 805 . 541 . 9260 • s d g 0 s d S r c h i to cts . c o m • B ria n_ S t a r C 1 51 75 Pismo Street Station L,._y Council Hearing October 28, 1999 Pa9e 2 The laundry building has been relocated to the Buchon Street end ohhe site; with. an adjacent concrete block corral for eight waste wheelers. The three living units adjacent to Pismo Street will place waste wheelers on the curb for collection 'like the rest of the neighborhood. We have confirmed with San Luis Garbage Company that this arrangement will satisfy their trash collection requirements. This new proposed site plan responds to each of the six issues identified by the City Council at the September 7 hearing (refer to the attached minutes). We therefore request that the revised project be approved as submitted. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,. SDG Tim Ronda Architect Enclosures 1-20 eW NCIL C0 � o Attachment 8 ✓ATttSpreY 25 October 1999 ✓ a:RW. a Pa WT: , OREI City Council -City of San Luis Obispo ` ►!Ko_ 13PPs�Li RECEIVED RE: I 1-Unit Affordable Housing Project on Buchon and Pismo Streets 0 C T 1 5 1999 Dear Su or Madam: SLO CITY CLERK Since the last City Council meeting,the Pismo Johnson Neighborhood Association(PJNA)has approached and met with the Director of the Housing Authority and the Project Architect with the hope of resolving all of the neighborhood's remaining issues with the proposed project. Based on what we see on the current drawings,the revised design addresses many of the issues the neighborhood has expressed previously. Below are items we feel have not been sufficiently addressed,and with animal effort on the part of the designers (and, in some cases,by future City improvements),the items in bold print could be achieved and wholeheartedly supported by PJNA.We have attempted to communicate these concerns to the Architect and the Director(see attached letter and drawing)but they appear unwilling to address our remaining issues. It is our hope that the City Council will intervene and consider the following: 1. ISSUE: PARKING -The PJNA feels strongly that the lack of parking continues to be the most significant remaining issue of the project. This opinion is shared by some members of the City's Engineering Department . and although we appreciate the additional two spaces the current design has.provided, it does not go far enough. ACTION: With a minimal change to the site plan,add four additional on-site parking spaces, bringing the total to 22.(See Drawing provided by PJNA) 2. ISSUE: DENSITY—The PJNA continues to object to the proposed density of this project due to its inconsistency with the character of the existing and/or future developed R-2 neighborhood. ACTION: Remove one snit (Bl)from the 3-unit building on Pismo St.,or alternatively,move the B1 & 82 unit from the Pismo St. building back to the HC unit building and bring the Al unit forward to the Pismo St.building.In either case,this would allow a 2-unit building squared up to front Pismo St.,a more consistent appearance to the easting street,and two additional parking spaces.Additionally by flipping the HC unit,more direct access from the HC parking stall to the HC unit is provided.The current design has a travel distance of over 1001.(See Drawing provided by PJNA) 3. ISSUE: TRAFFIC—From the beginning,the neighborhood has been concerned about the increase in vehicular trips this development will create on Pismo Street,and the real danger of serious accidents at the Pismo and Johnson intersection. Since this project as designed will not impact the Buchon and Johnson intersection,we do not see the need for any improvements there at this time. But we do feel that some mitigation of the traffic from this project must be addressed. ACTION: The City Council formally investigates widening the future Bike Trail bridge crossing San Luis Creek at the end of Pismo St.,to allow a one-way vehicular exit from Pismo St onto Pepper St. This has been discussed with the City Engineering Director and he has expressed interest in the idea It would give a second,safer exit from the project and residents of Pismo St.,allow access for vehicles to Marsh St.and decrease the number of trips through the Pismo and Johnson intersection. Sincerely, PISMO/JOHNSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Peter Stenos, AIA Robert&Ginny Griffin Ty&Denise Martin Evelyn Talmage Mary Fox Owen Betts Linda Shotwell Anthony Gomez Palmer Hewlitt Rob Lewin Rick Hamlin, P.E. Ruth&Keith Moles Marlie Schmidt Mark Johnson&Ursula Bishop Tim Andreatta&Kim Wreobel William&Bernice Jeong 1-21 / 30 September 1999 George M�oplan Director-Housing Authority 487 Leff St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: 11-Unit Affordable Housing Project on Buchon and Pismo Streets Dear George: Thank you for taking the time to meet with us yesterday and to allow us to meet directly with your project architect Tim Ronda. The Pismo Johnson Neighborhood Association(PJNA)appreciates the changes you have made to your project to accommodate our concems and feel we are moving in the right direction to resolve all of the neighborhood's remaining issues. Below are items we feel have not been sufficiently addressed,and with minimal effort on your part,the items described could be achieved and wholeheartedly supported by PJNA. 1. PARKING -The PJNA feels strongly that the lack of parking continues to be the most significant remaining issue of the project. This opinion is shared by some members of the City's Engineering Department and although we appreciate the additional two spaces the current design has provided, it does not go far enough. With a minimal change to the site plan,four additional on-site parking spaces could be provided,bringing the total to 22. (See Drawing provided) 2. DENSITY—The PJNA continues to object to the proposed density of this project due to its inconsistency with the character of the existing and/or future developed R-2 neighborhood. We would like to see one unit (B1)removed from the 3-unit building on Pismo St.; or alternatively,move the Bl &B2 unit from the Pisr St. building back to the HC unit building and bring the Al unit forward to the Pismo St. building. In either case,this would allow a 2-unit building squared up to front Pismo St.,a more consistent appearance to the existing street,and two additional parking spaces. Additionally by flipping the HC unit,more direct access from the HC parking stall to the HC unit is provided. The current design has a travel distance of over 100'. Your architect has expressed a reluctance to flip the HC unit due to a second story window privacy issue between the eyed-units of the 2-unit and HC-emit buildings,but this could easily be mitigated by orientmg either the second story bedroom windows to the end wall, as you are doing for the second story windows which overlook the back yards of the project neighbors. (See Drawing provided) 3. TRAFFIC—From the beginning,the neighborhood has been concerned about the increase in vehicular trips this developwill create on Pismo Street,and the real danger of serious accidents at the Pismo and Johnson intersection.We feel that some mitigation of the traffic from this project must be addressed. We would bice to see your assistance with the City, including financial,to formally investigate widening the fire Brice Trail bridge crossing San Luis Creek at the end of Pismo St.,to allow a one-way vehicular exit from Pismo St onto Pepper St. This has been discussed with the City Engineering Director and he has expressed interest in the idea. It would give a second,safer exit from the project and residents of Pismo St., allowing access for vehicles to Marsh St. anddecreasing the number of trips through the Pismo and Johnson intersection. We look forward to hearing from you at your convenience. Sincerely, PISMO/JOHNSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Peter Stenos,AIA Robert&Gmny Griffin Ty&Denise Martin Evelyn Talmage Mary Fox Owen Betts Linda Shotwell Anthony Gomez Palmer Hewlitt Rob Lewin Rick Hamlin,P.E. Ruth&Keith Moles Marlie Schmidt Mark Johnson&Ursula Bishop Tim Andreatta &Kim Wreobel William&Bernice Jeong 1-22 1 HG 5 k\ R El A2 1 I 1 � ; 1-23 Attachment 9 ��l�lll ISI IIIIIBHIII��;��plllfl II�III city of sAn WIS OBISPO %Waat%jafj,uij fty°afyd WdWMa2, 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 93401 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) OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. 1-24 �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(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. 1-25 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing X Energy and Mineral X Cultural Resources Resources X Geological Problems Hazards Recreation X Water X Noise X Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services X Transportation and Utilities and Service IILL �f Circulation Systems ElThere is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. ,The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on a attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be X prepared. 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 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided o 1-26 mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose upon the proposed project. April 26, 1999 Xgnature 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. 1-27 Issues and Supporting Informat. . Sources Sources Potel. y Potentially Less Than No Housing Authority-Pismo Street Station significant significant significant Impact ER 11 99 Issues Unless Impact 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) CumulattOM' exceed official regional or local population projeitions:?': X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (66g. through projects in an-undeveloped area X or:major infrastructure? c) Displace P.- housing, especially affordable housing? _ X 1-28 Issues and Supporting Informat,. . Sources sources Poter, J Potendally Less Than tao Housing Authority-Pismo Street Station significant significant significant Impact ER 11 99 Issues Unless impact 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 1-29 Issues and Supporting Informat.. .f Sources sources Pote,. .y 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 uanti g q- ty:of ground waters,.either ahrough direcf additions or wrttidiawafs, orr through interception X of an. aquifer.by cuts or excavations or,tlrough substantial loss of groundwater-rechar&-capeibilit.Y7 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..publlc,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 1-30 Issues and Supporting Informat._ . Sources Sources Poter.. .y Potentially Less Than No Housing Authority-Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 11-99 Issues Unless Impact 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 chan9e 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 PM10 (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 CEQA 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 . TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic conges' tion? 7,15 1X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp 15 curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X 1-31 Issues and Supporting Informat._.. Sources Sources Poten. .y Potentially Less Than No Housing Authority-Pismo Street Station Significant significant significant Impact ER 11-99 Issues Unless Impact 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) Hazards 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) F_. 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 to 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. 1-32 Issues and Supporting Informat.. . Sources sources Potm y Potentially Less Than No Housing Authority-Pismo Street Station significant significant significant Impact ER 1 1-99 Issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 10 1 Incorporated Johnson Avenue/Pismo Street Intersection: During February through June of 1998, the City Council held a series of public hearings to adop 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 projec 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 othe 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 requirement of 13 car spaces. Project plans show 15 car parking spaces which meets City standards. Bicycle and Motorcycle Parting: 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 effect: Endangered;:threatened or rare species or.thek 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 c) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian-and vernal pool? 8 X 1-33 Issues and Supporting Informat._ Sources Sources Poter. .y Potentially Less Than No Housing Authority-Pismo Street Station Significant significant significant Impact ER 11-99 Issues Unless Impact 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 maximum use of passive means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain comfort. To avoid using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner, the following standard mitigation is recommended: Mitigation Measure: 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 ori•elease of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil,:pesticides, X chernicals 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 flamrnable brush, grass:or trees? X 1-34 Issues and Supporting Informs. .i Sources Sources Pote. y Potentially Less Than No Housing Authority - Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 11-99 Issues Unless Impact mitigation Page 12 1 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 isnot 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 Signifcant 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including goads? 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 the project. Schools: The proposed development will contain 11 -apartments. In San Luis Obispo, according to State of California 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. 1-35 Issues and Supporting Informa. Sources Sources Potei y Potentially Less Than No Housing Authority - Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 11-99 Issues Unless Impact 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 1-36 Issues and Supporting Informa n Sources sources I Pole. .ly Potentially Less Than No Housing Authority-Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 11-99 Issues Unless Impact 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 recreationa 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 1-37 . Issues and Supporting Informa r Sources Sources Pore, y Potentially Less Than No Housing Authority- Pismo Street Station Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 11 99 Issues Unless Impact 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. I City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 1997. 2• City of SLO Land Use Element, April 1997. 1-38 Issues and Supporting Informa i Sources Sources Pote. .y Potentially Less Than 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. JShoals/Environ/InitialStudies/ERI 1-99(Housing Authority) 1®39 %ice , 1999 rna�c. a..Z— 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 (NTivl) 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 wan-ants for installing a traffic signal. If any one of the warrants is met,the traffic engineer may consider the use of a 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 concluded that . 1-40 1-\Tr=Vortation Division\TRAMCUohnson-PhmoO21799Adoc 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. TEC)EINICAL 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 tum 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 1-41 (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 For a 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 generally 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 improved 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 northbound Johnson 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 the f* a 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 an 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. 1-43 le/14/19y9 15:18 805546a734 DAYS INN r4itat ul T -- - --�-Q Attachment 10 " R. F. Mueller P-0-DOX 12627 San Z-u-S Obispo, CA FOIce: 605.544-5651 : ';";;:::'.•:g's:a�z-:.....<,:a:<.=dw I:i1% ax+..^t, =."';;:iey.-.,.>.. FAX: 805 546-0734 r .:iS"'cxxa:P+9�<"•.tz..'"*r"�: a".:°t.. �::s.2.zx'-inx�m m.`.".w��4'.sY'� w. p a.+:....,. ��- .wrrwvr_ ��w' :>,..--'k <.n:+or. .r.5 . .a...b>';,nsx�^. �� ^��';°x.5...e:s sr;:�w.,s.A':•':w.'°i.sn+....:';:t,::.... 7�Y3 �✓'°'°«�< '��. �Fa M:.... :.MHa;`x� s .tri ti To: John Shoals Fax: 805 781 7173 From: Robert Mueller Date: 10/14/99 Re: Pismo St Housing Prgt pages; (Click bemand type number of pages [Click here d • an type IIame) • o :. 4 For Review D Please Correnent ❑ Please 7<ryY L] Pla�se RecyrJ TfL�'. 5 .Y. w otential for the city to fund the . offsite improvements ie sidewalk and crossing n=`evaluation orthe pedest iaMrafGc sated,w1c completed{np rtta9es to Johr�on--where is crosshng to west side cfJohnson - l. n'f- .�s P¢o 1u� Gowo��«•.•- CRYstandardsfor tV oo V,&. �F re4umng atumaround; indude if possible examples otappa 'on in cther projects=could aisola�now..c,� . indude any instances where such hVmvernenta were not required z' WJ ,, Aag 44- DeStj& City design standard for street end tum around—cut sheet ICA Mm 5(u.VS OF 6 9TR.� tt� D . t//-A A". ` 3. SICEW&C- r.. If railroad coo perafion is needed has the developermade the contectto them? Pbblic works shoWti yftjk y Y� Put a Perspective on this. — �� vy'^ p .ria.•+ �L'.. "".y' �.7' ai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-44 - attachment 11 city of sAn WIS OBISPO 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 November 2, 1999 Robert Mueller P.O.Box 12627 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (VIA FAX 546-0734) Subject: Pismo Street improvements associated with the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority apartment project at 1363 Pismo Street. Dear Robert, The following is in response to your request relating to the development of the above-described project: 1. Why is a cul de sac not being installed with the project on the Pismo St.frontage? The property purchased by the Housing Authority(HA) only includes about 20 ft. of frontage on Pismo St.,beyond the proposed Pismo Street driveway. The portion beyond this point belongs to the Union Pacific Railroad. Ultimately,the City will acquire the additional right of way through the development process or in conjunction with the proposed railroad bicycle path plan to complete the cul de sac improvements. Any right of way that could be acquired from the HA to provide a"symmetrical"design would not have been sufficient to provide for any practical portion of cul de sac improvements. The cul de sac will be offset to the north and will not affect the HA property or the existing residence on the opposite side of the street. (See attached sketch) 2. Design standards for cul de sacs. (See attached sketches showing concentric and offset designs.) 3. Mechanisms to have sidewalks installed on Buchon and Pismo Streets. a. Condition of future building permits and/or use permits, per Municipal Code. b. Assessment district-this is more difficult now,pursuant to current State law. c. Neighborhood cooperative efforts on their own volition. d. City instigated sidewalk installation under the Capital Improvement Program, subject to finalizing priority rating criteria and policy. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. low Telecommunications oevice for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Robert Mueller (Re: 1363 Pismo St.) November 2, 1999 Page Two If you have any questions regarding this matter,please callme at 781-7194. incerely, en y Kim., Civil Engineer Attachment: Sketch c: 7 Shoals MM/1`B/MB/HB/file DevRev/:../Pismo 1363 Mueller letter-cul de sac 1-46 O I - i propos "' 2 1 � i .� a DEY /... a �- STUET ` I DRAINUNDER '.5E7�CR SIDEWALK ." .4iiV x I I —--•--^--�- -- - - � - � ,�:�' �. 4 _-�:_ :=mac;�,;_�_ . •NEW SPREE LIGHT r � I 4