HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/1999, 2 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3001/3045 JOHNSON AVENUE; JUDSON TERRACE LODGE. GPR 106-99 AND ER 106-99 council =r3-99
j ac En as Report 2 N
C ITY O F SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director D
Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3001/3045 JOHNSON AVENUE;
JUDSON TERRACE LODGE. GPR 106-99 AND ER 106-99
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt a resolution approving the negative declaration, with mitigation measures, and
amending the property's General Plan land use designation from low density residential to
high density residential;
2. Introduce an ordinance to rezone the property from low-density residential (R-1) to high-
density residential with a Special Considerations Overlay zone(R-4-S); and
3. Adopt a resolution approving the additional density bonus with findings.
DISCUSSION:
Situation
The applicant, Judson Ten-ace Lodge, would like to expand their existing senior housing facility
onto an adjoining lot to the north. This vacant parcel presently carries a land use and zoning
designation of Low-Density Residential (R-1), with a maximum density of 7 units per net acre.
The applicant is requesting that the property's land use and zoning designations be changed to
High-Density Residential (R-4), with a maximum density of 24 units per net acre. Under its
current R-1 zoning, the property can be developed with 4.69 dwellings. If it were designated R-
4, the property could be developed with 16 dwellings. In the R-4 zone, dwelling units have the
following unit values: studio, 0.50 unit; one-bedroom, 0.66 unit; two-bedroom, 1.00 unit; three-
bedroom, 1.50 units and four bedroom, 2.00 units. The applicant is proposing to develop the
property with 32 senior frail elderly apartments (28 one-bedroom and 4 studios) at a density of
20.48 units per acre. To achieve this density,the property would need to be rezoned to R-4 and a
28% density bonus granted to the planned senior housing project.
The City Council is being asked to consider the following:
1. General Plan amendment to change the property's land use designation from low density
residential to high density residential, with a maximum density of 24 units per net acre;
2. Rezone from R-1 to R-4;
3. Environmental review of the'project's potential impacts; and
4. A 28% density bonus, consisting of the State required 25% bonus and a 3%additional bonus
consistent with City Code(Zoning Regulations-Section 17.90.050).
2-11
Council Agenda Report
GPR 106-99(3001/3045 Johnson Ave.)
Page 2
Planning Commission Recommendation
On November 17, 1999, the Planning Commission voted 6 to (Commissioner Ready opposed)
to recommend that the City Council approve the mitigated negative declaration, the General Plan
amendment and zone change with findings and conditions. The Commission found the project to
be consistent with General Plan goals and policies on affordable housing and special needs
housing for seniors. The Commission expressed concerns with land use conflicts (high density
housing next to single family residences), but felt that compatibility issues could be addressed
through project design, including the incorporation of land use buffers. To address land use
compatibility,the Commission is recommending that a Special Considerations overlay zone ("S"
zone)be placed on the property, and that subsequent development be reviewed for issues such as
noise, lighting, views and aesthetics. Attachment 8 is a copy of the Planning Commission
resolution. Attachment 9 is a copy of the minutes from the Planning Commission hearing.
EvAnation
General Plan Consistency
There are numerous General Plan policies that relate to the conversion of this property from Low
-Density Residential to High-Density Residential. City staff and the Planning Commission have
reviewed these policies (see attached Planning Commission staff report for analysis) and found
the proposed General Plan amendment to comply with the General Plan.
Rezoning Analysis
Given the site's location and access constraints, it is very likely that the site will be developed as
a senior frail elderly facility. However, in reviewing the proposal staff considered the possibility
that only the rezoning will be approved and a more conventional multi-family housing project
could be developed on the property. To assure that any future development of the property
considers neighborhood compatibility, staff and the Planning Commission are recommending
that the Special Considerations overlay zone be designated on the property. The "S" overlay
zone is a tool to guarantee that neighborhood compatibility issues such as noise, lighting, and
aesthetics are addressed through project design. The special consideration for the site can be
documented to provide direction with the review of the use permit to ensure any other
development of the property will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not
result in any negative impacts.
Additional Density Bonus
The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council approve the additional density
bonus with two findings. The proposed senior housing development meets the City's affordable
housing incentive criteria, and the additional density will assure finding that the apartments are
affordable to seniors.
2-2
Council Agenda Report
GPR 106-99 (3001/3045 Johnson Ave.)
Page 3
Environmental Review
An initial environmental study (initial study) was prepared for the proposed General Plan
amendment and rezoning. The initial study identified potentially significant, but mitigable,
impacts to land use compatibility and aesthetics. Impacts in all other areas were determined to
be less than significant or to have no impact. The initial study is included in the Planning
Commission staff report(Attachment 10).
Neighborhood Input
Several neighbors spoke against the project at the Planning Commission meeting. The neighbors
are concerned that the rezone is too drastic a change and will allow high-density development to .
encroach into an existing single family neighborhood. Their primary concerns are: noise,
light/glare, aesthetics, drainage, traffic and obstruction of views by two-story buildings.
The Planning Commission shared many of the neighbors' concerns, but felt that the property
could be supported for the following reasons: 1) any development on the site will be reviewed by
the City Architectural Review Commission to assure that building mass, light and glare,
drainage, on-site circulation and aesthetics are addressed properly; 2) building height will be
masked because there is about an 8-foot difference in elevation between the R-1 property and the
site; 3) the project will provide additional opportunities for affordable senior housing; and 4) the
project promotes a compact urban form.
CONCURRENCES
No other departments object to the proposed change of land use at the site. Project specific
requirements from other departments will be incorporated as conditions of the Architectural
Review Commission approval.
FISCAL IlVIPACTS
None
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the proposed General Plan and zoning map amendments without the requirement for
the Special Considerations Overlay zone.
2. Approve a General Plan and zoning map amendment to Medium High Density Residential
(R-3-S) that would allow the applicant, at a reduced density, 20 one-bedroom apartments and
4 studios. This alternative assumes a 25%allowed density bonus for senior housing.
3. Deny the proposed General Plan and zoning map amendments, based on inconsistency with
the general plan.
2-3
Council Agenda Report
GPR 106-99(3001/3045 Johnson Ave:)
Page 4 - -
4. Continue review with direction to the applicant and staff.
ATTACffiVIENTS
Attachment 1 -Draft Resolution"A"-Approving the General Plan Amendment
Attachment 2 - Draft Ordinance"A"- Approving.the Rezone
Attachment 3 -Draft Resolution"B"-Denying General.Plan.Amendment/Rezone
Attachment 4-Draft Resolution"C'%Approving the Additional Density Bonus
Attachment 5 - Draft Resolution"D'%Denying the Additional Density Bonus
Attachment 6 - Vicinity Map
Attachment 7 - General Plan and Zoning Map
Attachment 8-Planning Commission.Resolution No. 5278-99
Attachment 9 - Draft.Minutes for Planning Commission meeting.of November 17, 1999
Attachment 10-Planning Commission Staff-Report of November 17,.1999 with:
Applicant's statement and Revised Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
JShoaWCC/GPR106-99(Judson)R
2-4
Draft Resolution"A" Attachment 1
RESOLUTIONNO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP
TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY AT 3001/3045 JOHNSON
AVENUE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
(GP 106-99)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 17, 1999 and
recommended approval of the amendment to the City's General Plan Map;and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on December 13, 1999 and has considered
testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission;and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed map amendment is consistent with-the
policies of the General Plan;
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration with
the recommended mitigation therein adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The
Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures
into the project:
1. A Special Considerations ("S") overlay zone shall be placed on the property. The "S" overlay
zone is a tool to guarantee that the neighborhood compatibility issues are not overlooked. The
special consideration overlay will document that any proposed development on the site should be
reviewed for neighborhood compatibility and will require an administrative use permit to
establish proposed uses on the property. Potential land use compatibility issues will be addressed
through project design and incorporation of adequate buffers.
2. Future development on the site shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site
recycling. In addition, site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling
discarded building materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the construction
site. The plans must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director prior to
building permit issuance.
3. Any development on the site shall require architectural review to assure that impacts to views
and light/glare are addressed properly.
2-5
ResolutionNo. (1999 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the request to amend the Land
Use Element map designation from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential and the Planning
Commission's recommendations,staff recommendations,public testimony,and reports thereof,makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity because the zone change will result in the property being
developed with residential uses.
2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan which
encourage the development residential uses including those for special needs.
3. The proposed "S" overlay zoning will document that any proposed development should be
reviewed for neighborhood compatibility and will require the processing of an administrative use
permit to establish proposed uses.
4. The land use change and rezoning of the site is appropriate and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses through the required processing of an administrative use permit and
architectural review.
5. A mitigated negative declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on
October 25, 1998, which identifies no significant environmental impacts associated with project
development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures contained in initial study
ER 106-99 being incorporated into the project.
SECTION 3. Approval. The request to amend the Land Use Element map designation from Low
Density Residential to High Density Residential at 1234 Laurel Lane is hereby approved as shown on
attached Exhibit"A."
SECTION 4. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in the
documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use.
2-6
ResoludonNo. (1999 Series)
Page 3
On motion of_ _ __ , seconded by ,and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:.
NOES:
ABSENT:.
the foregoing resolution was passed and.adopted this day of
1999. -- - -- - -- —
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED':
i. "JJor, en
JShoals/CC/GPRI o6-99(ResoliitionA)
2c-
Draft Ordinance"A" Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO. (1999 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP
TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM R-1 to R-4-S
AT 3001/3045 JOHNSON AVENUE(R 106-99)
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 17, 1999, and
recommended approval of the amendment to the City's Zoning Map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on December 13, 1999 and has considered
testimony of other interested parties,the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed revisions are consistent with the General
Plan,the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission;and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration
with the recommended mitigation therein adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The
Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures
into the project:
1. A Special Considerations ("S') overlay zone shall be placed on the property. The "S" overlay
zone is a tool to guarantee that the neighborhood compatibility issues are not overlooked. The
special consideration overlay will document that any proposed development on the site should be
reviewed for neighborhood compatibility and will require an administrative use permit to
establish proposed uses on the property. Potential land use compatibility issues will be addressed
through project design and incorporation of adequate buffers.
2. Future development on the site shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site
recycling. In addition, site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling
discarded building materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the construction
site. The plans must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director prior to
building permit issuance.
3. Any development on the site shall require architectural review to assure that impacts to views
and light/glare are addressed properly.
2-S
Ordinance No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. R-4-S zoning will allow uses that are compatible with existing and allowed land uses in the area.
2. The "S" overlay zoning will document that any proposed development should be reviewed for
neighborhood compatibility and require the processing of an administrative use permit to
establish any use.
3. The proposed zone change will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity because the zone change will result in the property being
developed with residential uses.
SECTION 3. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment(R 106-99) is hereby approved and the
property rezoned to High Density Residential with Special Considerations (R-4-S) as shown on attached
Exhibit"A."
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of Council members voting
for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-
Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect no sooner
than thirty(30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at
its meeting held on the day of 1 1999, on a motion of
seconded by and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jr y o ey-if Jc&Jensen
JShoals/CC/GPR106-99(Ord mane)
2
2-9
Draft Resolution`B" Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING A REQUEST FOR A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR PROPERTY AT
3001/3045 JOHNSON AVENUE (GP/R/ER 106-99)
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 17, 1999,
and recommended approval of the rezoning and amendment to the City's General Plan map;and
WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 13, 1999 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action,and the project evaluation and recommendations of staff;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Finding. That this Council, after consideration of a request to amend the
General Plan Land Use Element Map and the official zoning map, thereby designating and zoning
the project site High Density Residential(R-4),makes the following findings:
1. It is not desirable to re-designate the site from Low Density Residential to High Density
Residential because rezoning the property will lead to land use conflicts between future
high density development and existing single family development.
(Council may insert different or additional,findings)
SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of the general plan map amendment and
rezoning described above is hereby denied.
On motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of ' 1999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen
JShoaWCC1GPR106-99(ResoMonB)
2-10
Attachment 4
Draft Resolution"C"
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING AN ADDITIONAL DENSITY BONUS FOR A SENIOR FRAIL ELDERLY
HOUSING PROJECT AT 3001/3045 JOHNSON AVENUE
(GP/R 106-99)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 17, 1999 and
recommended approval of an additional density bonus for a senior housing project at the 3001/3045
Johnson Avenue in accordance with City Zoning Regulations(Section 17.90.050);and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on December 13, 1999 and has considered
testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted Affordable Housing Incentives to encourage
housing projects to incorporate units affordable to qualifying seniors, and which conform to City
development policies and standards by providing density bonuses as required by the California
Government Code Section 65915,et.seq.;and
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted alternative or additional housing incentives
for parties agreeing to construct housing for qualifying senior households, and said parties desire an
incentive other than the standard 25 percent density bonus allowed by City Code(Section 17.90.040 of the
Zoning Regulations)and State law;and
WHEREAS,the Judson Terrace Lodge is requesting a density bonus in excess of that provided in
Section 17.90.030 of the Zoning Regulations.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findines. That this Council, after consideration of the request for an additional
density bonus and the Planning Commission's recommendations,staff recommendations,public testimony,
and reports thereof,makes the following findings:
1. The proposed senior housing development meets the affordable housing incentive criteria
contained in the Chapter 17.90 of the City Zoning Regulations.
2. The additional density bonus will allow for the development of a 32 unit frail elderly center, and
assure that the rental rates are affordable to low income seniors.
3. A mitigated negative declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on
October 25, 1998, which identifies no significant environmental impacts associated with the
additional density bonus.
4. The subsequent senior frail elderly housing project will comply with the City development
policies and standards for lot coverage, building height, parking, open space and land use
Z-11
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
compatibility.
SECTION 3. ADDroval. The request for a density bonus in excess of the standard 25% density
bonus is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The additional density bonus is only for the 32 senior frail elderly apartments proposed by
Judson Terrace Lodge.
2. The housing project must meet all City development standards and is subject to final review
approval by the City Architectural Review Commission. The ARC will review site design,
building architecture, parking and other site improvements to assure compatibility with
surrounding properties.
On motion of seconded by ,and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,
1999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
rty orn y J Jor nsen
M0aWCC1GPR106-99(ResolutionQ
2-12
Attachment 5
Draft Resolution"D"
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN ADDITIONAL DENSITY BONUS FOR A SENIOR FRAIL ELDERLY HOUSING
PROJECT PROPOSED AT 3001/3045 JOHNSON AVENUE
(GP/R 106-99)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 17, 1999 and
recommended approval of an additional density bonus for a senior housing project at the 3001/3045
Johnson Avenue in accordance with City Zoning Regulations(Section 17.90.050);and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on December 13, 1999 and has considered
testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted Affordable Housing Incentives to encourage
housing projects to incorporate units affordable to qualifying seniors, and which conform to City
development policies and standards by providing density bonuses as required by the California
Government Code Section 65915,et.seq.;and
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted alternative or additional housing incentives
for parties agreeing to construct housing for qualifying senior households, and said parties desire an
incentive other than the standard 25 percent density bonus allowed by City Code(Section 17.90.040 of the
Zoning Regulations)and State law;and
WHEREAS, the Judson Terrace Lodge is requesting a density bonus in excess of that provided in
Section 17.90.030 of the Zoning Regulations to allow for the development of 32 senior frail elderly
apartments;and
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Action. That this Council, after consideration of the request for an additional
density bonus and the Planning Commission'srecommendations,staff recommendations,public testimony,
and reports thereof,denies the additional density bonus based on the following findings:
1. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support approval of an additional density.
bonus.
(City Council species additional findings)
2-13
ResolutionNo. (1999 Series)
Page 2
On motion of seconded by ,and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES.-
NOES-
ABSENT:
YESNOES-.ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted,this day of ,
1999. - - -
Mayor Allen Setde
ATTEST:
City Cleik Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney JeffJorgensen
JShoals/CGGPR106-99(ResolutionD)
2-14
R-1
Attachment 6
/
mo
�f
- .� ,.tea • ,
�T e
,o h
r
ST ,j �
16 am
VianIV
3001 & 3045 Johnson St.
GP/R/ER 106-99
N
A 0 40 80 120 Feet
2-15
�R ttachment 7 ,
r
e� b3h
/ Z
o, 7 �9a AftjA
�•� ' � nq �Cr �i7 n�G
;
t8s7%a �DE f h yst ' 6�
� m r��r )7
/�; /4ao r / O / O
F
d � /o r` O � .
Q ,+04 O 3C
t4 Ar O
LMdro NOR
c d a
1 8 R-1 TO R-
N O t
Nr
m
� O
Ali/HG ��a-z}yl 9 �
8 rl ti Df �y
S --
-%(J
uo/3
4
957; ket3 Zii
70
1� Tr to
Yeoy pAc. ,' +`ph oy Ht
t
c
� 7Z '
TLF '
'�sa
ARD
-/\ F MLT. /Ki
JUDSON TERRACE LODGE
FRAIL ELDERLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
GIEN4 . P �LoNiIJC�
.2-16 E®
A tachment 8
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSIUN
RESOLUTION NO. 5278-99
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on November 17, 1999, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under
application GP/R and ER 106-99, Judson Terrace Lodge, applicant.
ITEM REVIEWED:
Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and rezone property from low-
density residential (R-1) to high-density residential with a Special Considerations
overlay (R-4-S), and environmental review
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
3001 and 3045 Johnson Avenue
WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and
studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has
established existence of the following circumstances:
Findings for General Plan Amendment/Rezone
1. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity because the zone change will result in the
property being developed with residential uses.
2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan which encourage the development residential uses including those for special
needs.
3. The proposed "S" overlay zoning will document that any proposed development
should be reviewed for neighborhood compatibility and will require the processing of
an administrative use permit to establish proposed uses.
2-17
s
Resolution No. 5278-99
Page 2
4. The land use change and rezoning of the site is appropriate and will be compatible
with surrounding land uses through the required processing of an administrative use
permit and architectural review.
5. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department
on October 25, 1998, and amended by the Planning Commission, which identifies
no significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The
Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant. adverse
impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures contained in initial
study ER 106-99 being incorporated into the project.
Additional Affordable Housing Incentives Proposal Findings
1. The proposed senior housing development meets the affordable housing incentive
criteria contained in the Chapter 17.90 of the City Zoning Regulations.
2. The additional density bonus will allow for the development of a 32 unit frail elderly
center, and assure that the rental rates are affordable to low income seniors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that GP/R and ER 106-99 be approved,
subject to the following condition:
"S" Zone Considerations
1. A Special Consideration zone overlay shall be placed on the property. The "S"
overlay zoning will document that any proposed development on the property will be
reviewed for neighborhood compatibility issues such as noise, lighting, views and
aesthetics; and require the processing of an administrative use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to
the City Council, approval of the proposal. The foregoing resolution was approved by
the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo on motion by Commr.
Peterson, seconded by Commr. Whittlesey, and on a separate roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Loh, Whittlesey, Jeffrey, Senn, Peterson and Cooper
NOES: Commr. Ready
ABSENT: None
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
Dated: November 17, 1999 2-18
Attachment 9
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 1999
3. 3001 and 3045 Johnson Avenue. GP/R and ER 106-99: Request to amend the
General Plan Land Use Map and rezone property from low-density residential (R-1)
to high-density residential (R-4) and environmental review; Judson Terrace Lodge,
applicant.
Commissioner Whittlesey arrived at 8:20 and participated in hearing this item.
Associate Planner John Shoals presented the staff report and recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council (1) adoption of a resolution
approving the mitigated negative declaration and the General Plan amendment/rezone
with findings and (2) adoption of a resolution approving the additional density bonus
with findings.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked for comment on the density bonus.
Associate Planner Shoals noted that the City's Affordable Housing Incentives Program
states that because this project is for senior citizens, it is not only entitled 25 percent,
but an additional density bonus request may be allowed, subject to Council approval.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked how many units would be allowed without a density
bonus.
Associate Planner Shoals replied 28.
Commissioner Senn asked if an R-1-PD zoning would be an acceptable alternative for
the same density.
Associate Planner Shoals stated that, as zoned, the site could accommodate four
residential units. An R-1-PD zoning would increase the density eight.times what is
allowed. The PD process would not allow the density proposed.
Commissioner Senn questioned the appropriateness of a "special considerations or "Sp
overlay for this site.
Associate Planner Shoals stated that given the location and ownership of this site, it is
likely that it would be developed as proposed. However, if it were not developed as a
senior/frail elderly housing, this R-4 property would be in the midst of R-1 properties
and there would be land-use compatibility concerns.
Manager Whisenand noted S Overlays are not limited to environmental, noise, or traffic
issues.
2-19
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 1999
Page 2
Commissioner Cooper commented on the possibility of averaging the parking
requirement between the two projects by utilizing design options. He questioned if the
definition of "large group housing" means one large building or a group of smaller
buildings.
Associate Planner Shoals stated large group housing could be accomplished through a
sum of structures; it is discretionary.
There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Roger Jump, Judson Terrace Homes Administrator, 3000 Augusta Street, provided the
history of Judson Terrace Homes, noting sponsorship by the First Baptist Church of
San Luis Obispo and. management by American Baptist Homes of the West. He
explained that for many years they've been looking for a way to provide a greatly
needed affordable home-like setting care for low-income seniors. They've had a
landlocked vacant lot for some time and have raised enough gift money to purchase the
adjacent lot. He described HUD's classification of fraiVeldedy centers that will allow
Judson Terrace Lodge to provide more service to seniors who do not yet need nursing
homes. Judson Terrace held a meeting on September 91' to discuss plans with
neighbors; only two neighbors attended the meeting.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked how the neighbors were notified of the September 9'
meeting.
Mr. Jump stated neighbors bordering Judson Terrace property were given fliers.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked how many residents are envisioned living in this senior
project.
Mr. Jump replied there would be 32 units occupied by single residents.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if these residents would be driving their own cars.
Mr. Jump replied no. Parking will be primarily for visitors and employees.
Bruce Fraser, Fraser Seiple Architects, 771 Osos Street, concurred with staffs findings
and recommendations. He described a study that determined the number of units
economically feasible for the site. He described a natural buffer that could be used
between the R-1 and Rh uses. He felt this kind of development will produce a good
neighbor since it is not noisy, will not have seasonal activities, or increase traffic.
Commissioner Loh felt this proposal presents a good solution for providing a needed
service to the fraiVelderly in San Luis Obispo. She questioned the new devLelopmment
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 1999
Page 3
parking area hammerhead.
Mr. Fraser stated the parking layout accommodates emergency vehicular turnaround
area and is legal under fire department requirements.
Commissioner Cooper questioned how a physical connection would be made between
the two properties to allow for shared staffing.
Mr. Fraser stated the design might address a four-stop, oversized elevator on the end
of the walkway.
Commissioner Cooper said he would like.to minimize vehicular movement through the
existing parking lot.
Marilyn Spoeneman, 2935 Johnson Avenue, stated this project would be built right into
everyone's backyards. She expressed concern about noise from heating and air
conditioning units, lighting and glare, and water and drainage issues.
Commissioner Senn had staff explain approval and review processes necessary for this
project to move forward.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked about the existing access between the two homes on
Johnson Avenue.
Ms. Speoneman stated that access is actually a neighbor's driveway.
Robert Risinger, 3007 Johnson Avenue, stated Judson Terrace is providing an
admirable service, but he concurs with his neighbor's concerns. He noted that he did
not receive notification of this hearing by mail nor did many of his neighbors. He did not
t believe a "mixed zone" is a good description of this area; it is R-1. There is available
property across the street that is properly zoned for this use. There are many similar
facilities/uses congested into this area. He expressed traffic and delivery/service,
noise, lighting, and drainage concerns. He questions a two-story facility designed for
the frail/elderly. He did not want his views or property value to be negatively impacted
and does not support a rezone of this property.
Rob Travis, 3001 Johnson Avenue, concurred with concerns expressed by his
neighbors. He delivered a petition signed by his neighbors objecting to this proposal.
Her felt the rezoning is extreme and will detract from his quality of life. San Luis Obispo
has always been opposed to "big box" stores and although this proposal is 32. units, it
will essentially be a "big box" house. He felt his property value and views will be
negatively impacted by this development. An R-4 rezone of this property will be
precedent-setting.
Irene Ray, 2976 Johnson Avenue, stated the staff report indicates this area is not a .
traditional low-density area, but more a mixed-density area, yet the large ,a of
10
1
Draft Planning Commission W,utes
November 17, 1999
Page 4
Exhibit B is R-1. She said she is a long-time resident of this area and urged opposition
of this R-4 rezone. Land use and zoning decisions form the very foundation of what the
quality of life means for a neighborhood.
Commissioner Jeffrey had staff explain R-1 and R-4 height limitations.
Commissioner Cooper asked Mr. Fraser to address property value issues raised by the
public.
Chairman Ready felt it inappropriate for the architect to discuss property values
because the Commission's charge does not address valuations.
Commissioner Senn asked why this project wasn't brought forward in the form of an R-
1-PD application.
Mr. Fraser stated a Planned Development was not requested because this proposal is
compliant with the Zoning Ordinance. R-4 addresses the nature of the proposal.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked for comment on Exhibit H.
Mr. Fraser stated they are trying to be responsive to neighbors by such a design.
Commissioner Loh asked if the property line would be fenced.
Mr. Fraser had not addressed this yet, but said it is typical in an R-1 zone to have six-
foot fencing around side and rear yards.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
Commissioner Peterson moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of a
resolution approving the mitigated negative declaration and the General Plan
amendments/rezone with findings and adoption of a resolution approving the additional
density bonus with findings. Commission Whittlesey seconded the motion.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if the motion included the S Overlay.
Commissioner Peterson replied yes.
Commissioner Loh requested the motion be amended to include a condition addressing
sufficient visual and sound barriers and shielding lighting from the neighbors.
Commissioner Peterson and Whittlesey accepted the amendment to the motion.
Commissioner Peterson stated a goal of our City is to promote a compact u[baB rm
oLL
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 1999
Page 5
which means denser development within the city. This project provides well-needed
affordable housing as well as providing some special-needs housing for a segment of
our population that is drastically under served. He has confidence in the ARC and their
ability to address neighborhood concerns regarding drainage, noise, lighting, retention
of views, etcetera.
Commissioner Cooper expressed concerns of increased on-site circulation and
suggested 6b, page 8 of the Initial Study be adjusted from "no impact" to "less than
significant impact."
The Commission reached consensus to amend 6b. page 8 of the Initial Study to reflect
a less than significant impact.
Commissioner Whittlesey stated there is no mention about a solid waste disposal or
recycling plans for this development.
Manager Whisenand stated the standard language was inadvertently omitted and will
be included on page 11 of the Initial Study.
Commissioner Senn questioned 1c on page 5 of the Initial Study and felt the category
should be readjusted to reflect "potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated" to
address neighborhood compatibility concerns. He also questioned 13a and 13c on
page 12 of the Initial Study because of neighborhood view and light/glare concerns.
This is an ideal use for this location and great social benefits would be provided, but
there are neighbors' concems to consider. He asked for staff comment on a PD
approach to this site.
Manager Whisenand stated this project does not involve any exceptions typically
involved through the PD process. He feels a PD would be used for the wrong reason.
The S Overlay is appropriate for the site. He noted senior apartments have different
parking requirements than standard residential apartrnents, Section 17.16.060.
The Commission reached consensus to adjust 13a and 13b to "potentially significant
unless mitigation incorporated" because the proiect will be conditioned to include
light/glare shielding and sufficient noise/visual buffers.
Chairman Ready expressed basic fundamental problems associated with this type of
development in this type of location. The proposal presents a big change to a piece of
land that is surrounded by existing residences. There is an incompatible nature of the
two uses.
Manager Whisenand recommended for clarity separating the mitigation for 1 c out of the
last paragraph on page 5 of the Initial Study.
2-23
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
November 17, 1999
Page 6
AYES: Commissioners Peterson, Whittlesey, Loh, Senn, Cooper, and Jeffrey_
NOES: Chairman.Ready
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 6=1-0:
2.24
Attachment 10
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
BY: John Shoals,Associate Planner MEETING DATE: November 17, 1999
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER: GP/R 106-99
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3001/3045 Johnson Avenue
SUBJECT: Request to amend the Land Use Element (LUE) map designation from Low
Density Residential to High Density Residential, and amend the zoning map from R-1 to R-4, for
property located on Pacific Street, near Johnson Avenue.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution approving the mitigated negative declaration and the General Plan
amendment/rezone with findings; and
2. Adopt a resolution approving the additional density bonus with findings.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The owners of Judson Terrace Homes would like to expand their facilities on Augusta Street.
Presently, Judson Terrace Homes consists of 108 units for affordable rental housing for seniors.
Their plans are to develop the adjoining property (at 3001/3045 Johnson Avenue) with 32 frail
elderly rental apartments. The subject property is general planned and zoned low density
residential (LDR/R-1). In order to proceed with the project, the applicant is requesting a General
Plan amendment and zone change from low density residential (LDR/R-1) to high density
residential (HDR/R-4) to allow for the development of the frail elderly housing development.
The Planning Commission reviews general plan and zoning amendments and makes a
recommendation to the City Council, which takes a final action on such requests.
Data Summary
Applicant: Judson Terrace Homes
Representative: Fraser Seiple Architects
Existing Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential) .
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential
Proposed Zoning: R-4(High Density Residential)
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation: High Density Residential
Environmental Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared on November 12, 1999. City
Council to take final action in December 1999.
Project Action Deadline: Legislative actions not subject to processing deadlines.
2-25
GP/R 106-99
Page 2
Site Description
The project site is comprised of two separate parcels and consists of 0.67 acres (29,175 square
feet).. It is vacant except for a stairway and surface drainage structures at the southerly
boundary.. Vegetation is limited to some existing trees, a small vegetable garden and.seasonal.
weed grasses. The site slopes from northeast-to southwest,varying between 4%and 11%.slope.
As shown on the vicinity.map (Attachment 1), the site is located between the R-1 zoned lots
fronting Johnson Avenue and the R-4 zoned lots fronting Augusta Street. The property does not
have legal access from any public right-of-way, and is accessed by footeither through .the
existing Judson.Terrace Homes driveway, or the.private residential lots on Johnson Avenue (to
the north). Therefore, any future development of the site would require establishing.legal access
from the surrounding streets.
Surrounding land uses are residential at various densities. The site is surrounded at the
northwest; northeast and southeast by. the rear yards of single family homes. A two-story
apartment building lies directly to the south and the :two-story buildings of Judson Tertace
Homes lie to the southwest.
Project Description
The project involves: 1) a General Plan amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) to
HDR (High Density Residential); 2) a zone change from R=1 (Low-Density Residential) to R-4
(High Density Residential); and 3) a request for a 28% density bonus in accordance with Section
17:90.050 of the Zoning Regulations. Approval of the:proposed project would allow for the
development 32 frail elderly rental apartments on the property. The applicant's narrative
statement/supporting documentation is included as Attachment 2.
Attachment 2 contains conceptual site plans, building floor plans and section. However, it
should be noted that the-site layout,building shapes, detailing, exterior.materials and landscaping
have not been finalized, and will be developed subsequent to the general plan amendment/zone
change request:. Its is the applicant's objective to give the new building a familiar residential
.appearance compatible with the surrounding single family and multi-family development. Final
project design will be reviewed by the City's Architectural Review Commission.
EVALUATION
General Plan Consistency
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan sets forth several social, economic and development
goals that pertain to the project.. Those goals and policies are listed below..
2-26
GP/R 106-99
Page 3
Community Goals
According to the General Plan, it is San Luis Obispo's goal to: 1) accommodate residents within
all income groups; 2) actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable to residents with
very low, low, and moderate incomes; and 3) encourage opportunities for elder care and
childcare within the city.
LU 2.4.8: High Density Residential
Development should be primarily attached dwellings in two- or three-story buildings, with
common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. Other uses which are
supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such as group housing, parks, schools, and
churches, may be permitted. Such development is appropriate near the college campus, the
downtown core, and major concentrations of employment.
LU 2.2.10: Compatible Development
Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that
neighborhood. All multifamily development and .large group-living facilities should be
compatible with any nearby, lower density development.
A) Architectural Character: Architectural Character: New buildings should respect existing
buildings which contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of
size, spacing,and variety.
B) Privacy and Solar Access: Privacy and Solar Access: New buildings will respect the privacy
and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory
buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings.
LU 2.5: Affordable Housing
The City will help conserve and increase residential opportunities for residents with very low,
low, or moderate incomes. As explained more fiilly in the Housing Element,each development
project should contribute in some way to the conservation or production of affordable housing,
considering the opportunities and limitations for the project. The major residential expansion
areas, in particular, should include a wide range of housing types and costs to meet the needs of
various income levels and housing preferences.
LU 2.8.1: Large Group Housing
Large group housing other than fraternities and sororities, such as retirement homes or homes for
handicapped, should not be located in low-density residential areas. They may be located, but not
concentrated, in medium-density residential areas. They may be concentrated in medium-high or
high-density residential areas, or in suitable commercial or light-industrial areas, where services
are convenient. Each large group housing proposal shall be evaluated through use-permit review.
2-27
GP/R 106-99
Page 4
H 8.1.1: Special Housing Needs
Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for those with special housing needs.
H 8.2.1: Encourage Special Needs Housing
The City will encourage housing that meets special needs of families with children, single
parents, disabled persons, those desiring congregate or co-housing lifestyles, the elderly,
students, and the homeless.
H 8.2.5 Location of special Needs Housing
Special needs living facilities should be scattered throughout the City rather than concentrated in
one district.
H 11.2.2: Consistency
The City should not permit development of housing on a site if development conflicts with goals
or policies of this Element or other General Plan Elements or other community goals.
Conclusion:
The project is consistent with the General Plan goals to: accommodate residents within all
income groups; actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable to residents with.very
low, low and moderate incomes; and encourage opportunities for elder care and childcare within
the city. The project is also consistent with General Plan policies on: the conservation and
expansion of affordable housing;the location of large group housing; and high density residential
development; the encouragement and maintenance of special housing needs; the location of
special needs housing; and housing affordability. The proposed General Plan amendment/
Rezone would increase the City's inventory of R-4 zoned land, and will increase residential
opportunities for elderly residents or low-income households. There is a possibility that the
project conflicts with the General Plan policy which states that large group housing should not be
located in low-density residential areas. This determination is largely based on whether the
surrounding area is considered a low-density residential area. It is staff's opinion that the area is
not a traditional low density area, but more of mixed density area. Based on this assessment, the
project can also be found to be consistent with this General Plan policy.
Although the project is considered to be consistent with the General Plan, there are some land
use issues that the Planning Commission should be aware of and take into consideration during
its deliberations. Specifically, changing the property's land use and zoning designations from
low density residential (R-1)to high density residential (R-4) could lead to conflicts between the
existing single family residences and the proposed group housing. As shown on the zoning map
(Exhibit C of Attachment 2),there is a clear boundary between the two zoning districts, with R-1
lots fronting Johnson Avenue and R-3 and R-4 lots facing Augusta Street. Approving the rezone
would allow the R-4 area to encroached in the R-1 area, without a transition or buffer to reduce
the potential for land use conflicts.
2-28
GP/R 106-99
Page 5
While the it is a City practice to provide transition zones and buffers between incompatible
zoning districts and land uses, there are some locations in the community where these situation
occur. One example would be Garden Creek at 61 Broad Street, where a congregate care facility
was developed on R-3 land that was across the street from an existing single family
neighborhood. Even though the neighbors felt that senior housing was a good use for site, they
expressed concerns with building height, building mass, setback, noise and other issues. In the
case of the proposed project, the R4 land and the future elderly apartments would be much
closer to the existing residences, and could result in similar land use compatibility issues. This is
also a possibility that the project will set a precedence and lead to other property owners in the
area requesting a similar zoning.
After considering of the above-mentioned factors, staff believes that there are several reasons to
support the project. First, the project can be found consistent with several goals and policies of
the General Plan. Second, amending the property's land use and zoning designations would
allow it be developed as part of the existing Judson Terrace Homes. This is largely based on the
site's difficult location and access constraints. An isolated landlocked parcel, the property must
be accessed through the existing Judson Terrace Homes parking lot driveway on Augusta Street.
The project architect indicates that access from Johnson Avenue or Laurel Lane was investigated
and determined to be unavailable or infeasible. Finally, the project will not create significant
new land use compatibility issues because there is already an interface between the R-1 and R4
properties in the area. This coupled with the type of proposed development (senior housing) will
ensure that no significant land use conflicts result from the project. It should also be noted that
potential land compatibility issues can be addressed through project design and the incorporation
of appropriate land use buffers.
2. Zoning Compatibility
Given the site's location and development constraints, it is very likely that the request to develop
the site as frail elderly housing will be pursued. However, staff has also considered the
possibility that only the rezoning will approved and a traditional residential housing project is
pursued. To ensure that any development of the property considers neighborhood compatibility,
staff recommends that the Special Considerations "S" overlay zone be designated on the
property. The "S" overlay zone is a tool to guarantee that the neighborhood compatibility issue is
not overlooked. The special consideration for the site can be documented to provide direction
with the review of the use permit to ensure any other development of the property will be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not result in any negative impacts.
3. Density Bonus
In accordance with City Code, the applicant is requesting an additional incentive for the housing
project Pursuant to City Code, a developer, who agrees to construct at least fifty (50%) of the
total units of a housing project for qualifying senior residents, housing for households of very-
2-29
GP/R 106-99
Page 6
low, lower or moderate income households, or for qualifying senior, may request a density bonus
and be eligible to receive an additional affordable housing incentive. A "density bonus" means
a density increase of at least twenty-five percent over the maximum density otherwise allowed
under the zoning regulations. An additional incentive may be a density bonus in excess of the
25%;a waiver of application and processing fees, exceptions to property development standards
or other incentives (City Zoning Regulations, Section 17.90.050).
Because all of the units will be affordable to qualifying senior residents, the housing project is
eligible for the City's affordable housing incentives. The applicant is requesting a 28% density
bonus, consisting of the standard 25% bonus plus a 3% additional bonus. It should be noted.that .
the project is entitled to the standard density bonus (25%), but the City Council must approve the
additional 3% density bonus. The Planning Commission's role is to make a recommendation to
the City Council on the additional density bonus proposal. Staff supports the additional density
bonus.
4. Project Design
Attachment 2 contains conceptual site plans, building floor plans and section. However, it
should be noted that the site layout,building shapes, detailing, exterior materials and landscaping
have not been finalized., and will be developed subsequent to the general plan amendment/zone
change request. It is the applicant's objective to give the new building a familiar residential
appearance compatible with the surrounding single family and multi-family development. Final
project design will be approved by the City's Architectural Review Commission.
5. Environmental Review
An initial study was prepared for the proposed General Plan amendment,rezoning and residential
care facility use. The initial study identifies no significant environmental impacts as a result of
the proposed project. Staff is looking for Planning Commission comment on the initial study
document.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the proposed amendments, based on inconsistency with the general plan. Planning
Commission action is final unless appealed to the City Council.
2. Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments without the
requirement for the Special Considerations Overlay zone.
3. Continue review with direction to the applicant and staff.
2-30
GP/R 106-99
Page 7
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
No other departments object to the proposed change of land use at the site. Project specific
requirements from other departments will be incorporated as conditions of the Architectural
Review Commission or administrative use permit approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the initial study of environmental impact, and recommend approval of the request to
amend the Land Use Element (LUE) map designation from Low Density Residential to High
Density Residential, amend the zoning map from R-1 to R-4-S, and approve the additional
density bonus based on the following findings:
General Plan Amendment/Rezone Findings:
1. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity because the zone change will result in the
property being developed with residential uses.
2. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan
which encourage the development residential uses including those for special needs.
3. The proposed "S" overlay zoning will document that any proposed development should
be reviewed for neighborhood compatibility and will require the processing of an
administrative use permit to establish proposed uses.
4. The land use change and rezoning of the site is appropriate and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses through the required processing of an administrative use permit
and architectural review.
5. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on
October 25, 1998, which identifies no significant environmental impacts associated with
project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures
contained in initial study ER 106-99 being incorporated into the project.
Additional Affordable Housing Incentives Proposal Findings:
6. The proposed senior housing development meets the affordable housing incentive criteria
contained in the Chapter 17.90 of the City Zoning Regulations.
7. . The additional density bonus will allow for the development of a 32 unit frail elderly
2-31
GP/R 106-99
Page 8
center, and assure that the rental rates are affordable to low income seniors.
"S"Zone.Considerations.-
The
onsiderations.The "S" overlay zoning will document that-any proposed development on the property will be
reviewed for neighborhood compatibility, and require the 'processing of an administrative use
permit.
Attachments:
L.. Vicinity Map
I Applicant's Project Statement
3. Overview of Judson Terrace Lodge
4. Initial Environmental Study
JShoaN.?6GPR10&99(Judson)
2-32
Y 7'
R-1
Attachment 10•i
, s �
, <
y
V AIMS
iu%n%lty 3001 & 30.45, Johnson OL.
GP/P%/ER 106-99
N
A 0 40 80 120 Feet
2-33
Attachment ,2
NARRATIVE STATEMENT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE, RECEIVED
APN 004972-028 AND 004972-052
JUDSON TERRACE LODGE MAY 2 0 1999
RAL ELDERLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAN LUIS
AUGUSTA STREET,SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL
Judson Terrace Homes has been providing 108 units of affordable rental housing for seniors
since it was completed in 1970 at 3000 August Street The management of Judson Terrace
Homes has long recognized the demand for additional housing to serve the senior population with
a higher need for assistance in the tasks of daily life, but not requiring a skilled nursing or
convalescent level of care. To this end adjacent properties have been acquired and development
financing has been researched in connection with the construction of a"frail elderly"apartment
complex.
The currently requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is the first step in
developing 32 frail elderly rental apartments,to be known as"Judson Terrace Lodge." The
processing of this request will occur concurrently with an application for funding to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Developments 202 loan program.
The applicant maintains that a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to High
Density Residential,and an accompanying Zone Change from R-1 to R-4,will better address
policies in the City's Housing Element without significantly compromising other Housing Element
or Land Use Element policies.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing site is vacant except for a stairway and surface drainage structures at the southerly
boundary. Vegetation is limited to some existing trees,a small vegetable garden, and seasonal
weed grasses. The site slopes from northeast to southwest,varying between 4%and 11%slope.
Rainwater drains across the surface of the site, collecting at a formal concrete swale above the
Judson Terrace Homes retaining walls,where it is conveyed to the west.
The southeastern comer of the site is subject to minor shading from existing buildings and
vegetation. The site enjoys good solar exposure(refer to solar angles on the site analysis
exhibit). Prevailing breezes move west-to-east across the site and storm winds in winter often
come from due south.
The traffic noise contours from Johnson Avenue and Laurel Lane have not been mapped at this
site, but it appears that the location of the project in the center of the block will isolate it from
levels of traffic or other noise that require mitigation.
Surrounding uses are residential at a variety of densities. The site is surrounded at the
northwest, northeast, and southeast by the rear yards of single family hones. A two story
apartment building lies direly to the south and the two story buildings of Judson Terrace Homes
lie to the southwest.
2-34
Page 2
PROPOSED PROJECT
Exhibits A through J describe the existing site conditions and a preliminary design for the Judson
Terrace Lodge development. The proposal is for a one and two story structure with 28 one-
bedroom and 4 studio apartments,for an actual total of 32 units and an equivalent total of 30
units(using 0.50 unit for each studio). A 25%density bonus for senior housing is assumed.
Project statistics are as follows:
Building Areas:
28 units type A @ 518 s.f.= 14,504
4 units type B @ 455 s.f.= 1,820
Circulation= 5,320
Common Spaces= 3.734
Total: 25,378 s.f.
Parking:
Accessible Spaces: 2
Compact Spaces: 2
Regular Spaces: 12
Total: 16
Setbacks: 8 feet minimum,all sides
Site Area Lot 28: 11,625
Lot 52: 17.550
Total: 29,175 s.f.
Coverage:
Building Footprint: 12,249 s.f. =42%
Paved Parking and Driveway: 6,026 s.f. =21%
Patios and Walks(assumed): 1,500 s.f. = 5%
Landscaping: 9,400 s.f. = 32%
The proposed project design responds to various environmental criteria,such as slope and solar
exposure, and the new project's relationship to the existing Judson Terrace Homes development.
Because the subject site is landlocked access must be gained through the existing Judson
Terrace Homes parking lot connecting to Augusta Stmt. Access by easements or property
acquisitions from Johnson Avenue or Laurel Lane were investigated and determined to be
unavailable or unfeasible.
The proposed building form surrounds parking in a way that develops a wind protected pocket
oriented to southern and western sun. The site plan works with the relatively wide and shallow
unit design to give apartments generally good views and daylight.
In order to minimize the potential impacts of building mass on surrounding properties, especially
to the north and west,the uppermost portions of the project are limited to a height that is about
one story above adjacent grade, as demonstrated in the section, Exhibit H.
2-35
Page 3
The new apartmerits will receive primary food service from the existing Judson Terrace Homes
kitchen,and the existing lounge will be shared by residents of both the new and the existing
apartments. In response to this and the need to maintain a high level of accessibility for
residents, the new structure will incorporate a three-stop elevator, serving both new housing
levels and the central level of the existing project.
Decisions have yet to be made regarding building shapes, detailing, exterior materials, and
landscaping, but it will be the applicant's objective to give the new building a familiar residential
appearance compatible with surrounding single family and multi-family development.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST
The request presented herewith is for a General Plan Land Use Map change as indicated in
Exhibit B, following. Specifically,Assessor's Parcel Numbers 004972-028 and 004972-052
currently carry the General Plan designation of"Low Density Residential"and are zoned"R-1."
We propose that both parcels be changed to a General Plan designation of"High Density
Residential"and be re-zoned"R-4."
We do not identify the need for a General Plan text change.
While a change to Medium Density Residential and a R-2 or R-3 zone would constitute less of a
jump in density,the R-4 density is more compatible with existing R-4 zoned land neighboring the
site and is required to make the development economically viable.
In general terns,the implementation of the requested change to the General Plan Land Use Map
will bring San Luis Obispo closer to its goals for the quantity of affordable rental housing units in
the City and its goals for the provision of special needs housing oriented to seniors.
The requested General Plan Amendment is compatible specifically with Land Use Element
Policies 2.4.2(density bonus for elderly-serving housing), 2.5(affordable housing—general), and
2.8.1 (location of group housing). The amendment will bring the City into a higher level of
compliance with Housing Element Policies 1.10.1 (affordability), 1.10.7(special needs), 1.122.3
(affordability), 1.27.2(infill housing locations), and 1.28.5(scattering of housing types). With the
requested General Plan map change in place,we do not identify any goals or policies that will be
placed into substantial conflict, or will be substantially compromised.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Vicinity Map
Exhibit B: General Pian Map Change
Exhibit C. Zone Map Change
Exhibit D: Site Analysis
Exhibit E: Overall Site Plan
Exhibit F: Lower Building Plan
Exhibit G: Upper Building Plan
Exhibit H: Site Section
Exhibit I: One-Bedroom Unit Floor Plan
Exhibit J: Studio Unit Floor Plan
2-36
_ _ r :tea � 7l>2�yJ(!'.\?4.�„y�e-T'r�M� �,r�• -f+
• ♦_I � ;� ��Y4� �Kr ''IST �J��'/ �F�
Ma
.�1 n •' t\L'�jy�'ren �P �arc.� �"r`i `? hm1
J �
/1����� � int M Fjr, _--4�F 4 r^f(.• r L,z ���.g�
toz
\, " /�.�-\�.. aF,�.� (✓ \ �✓�.��`r�'�Z��.�i.Yu++�y� � yti-rt..:3 fn$�( 3"'.
INN
IA
rI -���-{�..}���-,�••�..�^�- L�J-a.� .`� _� /��►`� a a 5 s Gln K^��£1..1' -
P Li Lai zi�
lu
F Ilic
I _
^-.•.. \,�'., z._ �.\, �.i� � ?? a A�:i.�'./'i'7. ...2.:!-�^i< r :'..,••':
G3Cr.11C615
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
to
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ZZZ
%'/ / / / / / , /
,loo,
.01
RC UTT'
JUDSON TERRACE LODGE
FRAIL ELDERLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN EMIBIT
MAP CHANGE B
2.38 E®
SOSO
h 'jq
� A
Msr�a
hs ,
O"C
/a t /
WY �Oy a 61 -3c
o�� o z�d�
/ O
^tQ a R-1 TO R®4
N O
ti
I Z � dl�lNG J�a� 9 O \aaa
~ethe�»rtit O
hour Mery
WE
lZ UNNC, �Q)
b
uo Z L
yp
rcy�Rc!',� �77
'/l6 COY. A.
Cr
j2.8/ 4h�p
nP1YrE 'fie/ M !! rye,
rsc P F
�M
JUDSON TERRACE LODGE EMnerr
FRAIL ELDERLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT C
PROPOSED ZONE MAP CHANGE
REISPE
2-39
3�
e
y, � ED
� xm
X
4'...
f
ra y
7j WON ONl1SM Oa
Q . 4
Lo
Z y U
Sg a � IIIIIIII .III �� "
3ARl4l')NDWd ONUSDO
—LLIIIIIIIIII
LU 11
W
� W
W y
2 �y
0 g39 N
m
W I �
LV p
0 CD
p z ;
O
U = co)
W Lu J �
J ;
Z W
p Q .
co =� W
p � I
LL2.404
N
.. ..
Xm W �u'�
LW]
W fiv,
3NV'IgWn1'
I •
I �
1
i
J .
I '
II
H
Z �
WW y `.
L W
O
w s
w
O �
wCD
oN
O =
w = a
U W
cr w CO)
LU 0 J
J
Z W
D � W
� L O
2-41
m
W
t7 m
I r
• Ii �
LUm
W >rolwill.
Z
Y rNP1C � m
47fC1mci
a � I
O
0 ■
m �
III — w
1rt—
= II >
■ A W
W 0 Z
N
00
• 01 O0.
J c
a U
LU
PC
m
O ui W
co` •• * o
U-
2-42
X LIN_
W
m
a
a
a
a
p.
a I -
a
o a
N
a
ar
a '
• F-
Z
r LLI
CL
a p LLI
LL,
LLJz
♦�♦�
W N ' V
a Z
a OJ =D C)
Ux Z
H D m
OLU
J UJ�.. G C
LL.
2-43
-- NEW BUMPING ;
R� NEW PAMMLOL
PROPSM
�.
UNE ley
�ry
lPROM&
JUDSON TERRACE LODGE
FRAIL ELDERLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT EMBIT
NE-SW SITE SECTION
ME
244
PATIO OR DECK
I
I
I
LIVING SLEEPING
e.
0
1
c o
N
GEN: —
STOR.
DINING
BATH
O __ Q R P O -
L_ .28'-0:
JUDSON TERRACE.LODGE
FRAIL ELDERLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
EXHIBIT
ONE BEDROOM UNIT FLOOR PLAN
(unit type A)
2-45 E .
21'-0'
7,_0.
I
I ,
I PATIO OR DECK c
I'
i�
I
I
SLEEPING
0
i
i�
N
LIVING/DINING
P
00
BATH
O
Q R
do
JUDSON TERRACE LODGE
FRAIL ELDERLY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
EXHIBIT
STUDIO UNIT FLOOR PLAN
(unit type B) J
R
2-46 ®`'�
Attachment
Overview of Judson Terrace Lodge
One of the greatest needs which the residents and staff at Judson
Terrace feel is for an intermediate level of care between housing for the
elderly and nursing home care for low income seniors.
Eventually, most of our residents come to the point where they need more
care than we provide at Judson Terrace. But about % of the time, they do
not need nursing home care. They could do well in this in-between level
of care.
There are two big advantages to this:
1. Most seniors strongly prefer to be in more of a home-like
residential setting. One of their greatest fears is having to go permanently
to a nursing home with the accompanying loss of dignity, privacy, and
independence.
2. Additionally, the cost of this lower level of care is usually significantly
less than nursing home care, which saves taxpayers money.
We would stress the word "low income". This level of care is available
for people who can afford it, but for many of our low income residents who
have no assets, it is out of their reach. There are literally no facilities in the
city of SLO which will take low-income seniors, and the few sources in the
county for low income seniors are drying up. This is understandable when
SSI will only pay around $700 per month for Board and Care, and the cost
of providing this level of care ranges from $1,500 to $3,000 per month. That
leaves a huge gap.
Because of this great need, Judson Terrace has been interested in doing
assisted living for low income residents, but we do not feel we can do a
licensed level of care at this time because the financial gap is so great. We
are, however, focusing our efforts on building a HUD 202 "Frail Elderly
Center"which would provide more supportive services (such as 2 or 3
meals a day, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, social activities, design
features of apartments and the facility which are supportive of hrail elderly,
and bringing some medical services to the facility) and through more
intensive service coordination, work with other agencies to bring in other
services which we cannot provide directly.
We are planning a 32 unit "frail elderly center" on property which is
adiacent to Judson Terrace Homes and which would share staff and
facilities with Judson Terrace Homes.
2-47
Cit
Attachmenty ® SMWv�%..Pv v vav
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
GP/R 106-99
1 . Project Title:
Judson Terrace Lodge
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
John Shoals, Associate Planner
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:
3001/3045 Johnson
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Judson Terrace Homes
C/o American Baptist Homes
400 Roland Way
Oakland, CA 94621
6. General Plan Designation:
Low Density Residential
7. Zoning:
R-1 (Low-Density Residential)
2-48
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities..
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
8. Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but
not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-
site features necessary for its implementation.)
General Plan amendment to change the property's land use designation from
LDR (Low Density Residential) to HDR (High Density Residential); and zone
change to property's zoning designation from R-1 (Low-Density Residential)
to R-4 (High-Density Residential). Future projects to be reviewed by the City
include: architectural review and administrative use permit review of a 32-
unit frail elderly center on the site.
The project site consists of 0.67 acres (29,175 square feet) and two
separate lots. It is vacant except for a stairway and surface drainage
structures at the southerly boundary. Vegetation is limited to some existing
trees, a small vegetable garden and seasonal weed grasses. The site slopes
from northeast to southwest, varying between 4% and 11 % slope.
Rainwater drains across the surface of the site, collecting at a formal
concrete swale above the Judson Terrace Homes retaining walls, where it is
conveyed to the west.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Surrounding land uses are residential at various densities. The site is
surrounded at the northwest, northeast and southeast by the rear yards of
single-family homes. A two-story apartment building lies directly to the
south and the two-story buildings of Judson Terrace Homes lie to the
southwest.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The applicant is requesting a General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and
rezone. Future entitlement requests in architectural review and
administrative use permit approval for a 32-unit frail elderly center.
11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement):
None
Z 2-4J
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project or
subsequent projects on the subject property, involving at least one impact that is a
"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
X Population and Housing X Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
X Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
X Water Noise Mandatory Findings
of Significance
7Z L
X Air Quality Public Services
X Transportation and Utilities and Service - � ;°� - •_=- ••.-=-
Circulation Systems
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects
IIS' on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project
qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment
of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a X
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
prepared.
I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
1 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
3 2_50 .
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided o
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
November 17, 1999
nature, Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A"No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on
a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there .is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to thetiering, 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.
4 2-51
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 106-99 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the proposal:_
a) Conflict with general plan designation.or zoning? 1,2,3 X
b) Conflict with.applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted.by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be-incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible X
land uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or X
minority community)?
General Plan Consistency:
The General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (GPAIZC) and future project is considered to be consistent with the
social, economic and development goals of the General Plan which are to: accommodate residents within all
income groups; actively seek ways to provide housing which is affordable to residents with very low,.low and
moderate incomes; and encourage opportunities for elder care and childcare within the city. The project is
compatible with Land Use Element policies on: the conservation and expansion of affordable housing; the
location of large group housing; and high-density residential development. The project is compatible with
Housing Element policies on: the encouragement and maintenance of special housing needs; the location of
special needs housing; and housing affordability. The proposed General Plan amendment/rezone would increase
the City's inventory of R-4 zoned land, and will increase residential opportunities for elderly residents or low-
income households.
Land Use and Zoning Compatibility:
The site is general-planned and zoned low density residential (R-1), which is compatible with the existing
residential uses on Johnson Avenue or Laurel Lane. Rezoning the property from R-1 to R-4 could create
conflicts between the existing single-family residences and any future development on the site. Presently, there
is a clear boundary between the two zoning districts, with R-1 lots fronting Johnson Avenue and R-3 and R-4 lots
facing Augusta Street Approving the rezone would allow the R-4 area to encroached in the R-1 area, without a
transition or buffer to reduce the potential for land use conflicts. To reduce this potential land use conflict, any
future development on the site will be required to address land use compatibility issues such as noise and
aesthetics through project design and incorporation of appropriate land use buffers.
Given the site's location and access constraints, it is very likely that frail elderly housing will ultimately be
developed on the site; however, there is a possibility that only the rezoning would occur and a traditional multi-
family housing project would be developed on the site. The development of a conventional apartment project on
the site could create land use conflicts, if not properly designed to mitigate these impacts.
Mitigation Measure:
A Special Considerations ("S') overlay zone shall be placed on the property. The "S° overlay zone is a tool to
guarantee that the neighborhood compatibility issues are not overlooked. The special consideration overlay will
document that any proposed development on the site should be reviewed for neighborhood compatibility and will
require an administrative use permit to establish proposed uses on the property. Potential land use compatibility
issues such as noise, visual, lightfglare and buffering will be addressed through project design.
Conclusion: Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated
5 2-52
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentiaiiy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 106-99 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Incorporated
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would ttie;proposal ..
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 1,2 X
projections?:
b) Induce substantial growth in an-area either-directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped.area X
or major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially. affordable X
housing?.
Under the existing land use and zoning designation (LDR/R-1), the site could be developed with four single-
family homes. If the property was designated High Density Residential (R-4), it could be developed with 16
two-bedroom apartments (a density equivalent of 16 residential units). The applicant is proposing t
develop the site with 32 one-bedroom apartments for senior frail elderly.
According to 1999 California Department of Finance (CDF) estimates, there was an average of 2.3 persons per
occupied household in the City of San Luis Obispo. Under the existing land use and zoning designations of
LDR/R-1, it would accommodate 4 single-family residences with about 9 people. If the property was
designated high-density residential (R-4), the site could be developed with 16 two-bedroom apartments t
house about 37 people. The applicant is proposing to develop the site with 32 one-bedroom apartment
for senior frail elderly and about 32 people. Based on these assumptions, the GPA2C will allow for an
increase in population and housing. However, given the size of the site and the type of propose
development, the project is not expected to cause the City to cumulatively exceed local or regiona
population and housing projections.
The project will not induce substantial growth into the area because there is existing infrastructure at o
near the infill site.
The proposed General Plan amendment/rezone would increase the City's inventory of R-4 zoned land, and will
increase residential opportunities for elderly residents or low-income households. Development of the property
with affordable senior housing will be a beneficial impact on affordable housing.
Conclusion: Less than significant impacts on population and housing projections; Beneficial impact o
affordable housing.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to.potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? X
b) Seismic ground shaking? 4,5 X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or.mudflowP X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X
conditions from excavation, grading,or fill?
g) Subsidence.of.the land?
h) Expansive soils? 6 X
i) . Unique geologic or physical.,features?:,'::,.
X
Existing Conditions:
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
6 2-53
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 106-99 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Incorporated
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. Th
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.
Proiect Impacts:
Whether the site is developed with single-family or multiple-family residences will not alter the site's seismic
hazards. Future development on the site will be required to comply with the Uniform Building Codes and City
Codes which require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an
earthquake, and proper documentation of soil characteristics needs for designing structurally sound
buildings.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant .
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or:property to .water related 7 X
hazards such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration.of X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
A) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of X
water movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground .Waters,either. X
through•direct additions or withdrawals, `or through :' i
interception of an aquifer by cuts ovexcavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater.rechar.ge
-capabifity?
g) Altered'directiorr or ra'te of flow.of groundwater? "a X
Int acts to roundwate`. z X
h) p . . g r quality.
uciion tri;the arriount of gs•oundwater i' X
n3 !Substantial�red,.
:.-otherwise available for;;publio w...atersupp)tes�
7 2-54
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources PotentiaiiyPotentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 106-99 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Incorporated
Whether the site is developed with single-family or multiple family residences,the potential water-related impacts
will not significantly change.
Future development of the site will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and affect
absorption rate, drainage patterns and the amount and rate of surface runoff. To assure that potential
drainage impacts are minimized, any future development on the site will be required be designed to meet all
applicable City Codes, including 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.
According to the Flood Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A.) Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the property is
located in an area with minimal flooding impacts. Future project designs must comply with all applicable City
standards.
Conclusion: No water impacts with the General Plan amendment/rezone; Future development will have less than
significant drainage impacts and no flooding impacts.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violateany air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance 8 X
With APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
c) 'Alter air movement,-moisture, or temperature, or cause. X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? X
Existinq Conditions:
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.
Project Impacts:
The General Plan amendment/rezone will allow for the development of a project with more traffic an
increased air quality. However, the incremental difference is not considered to be significant. Future
development of the site may have short-term and long-term impacts.
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.
Long-term Impacts:According to the Air Pollution Control District's (APCD)"CEOA Air Quality Handbook,"
land uses that cause the generation of 10 or more pounds per day (PPD) of reactive organic gases, oxide
or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter have the potential to affect air quality significantly.
50-unit apartment complex generates over 10 pounds of these pollutants.
8 2-55
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 106-99 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Incorporated
Assuming the site is developed with 32 frail elderly apartments, future development would be of a size that
is below APCD's air quality significance thresholds. Therefore, the project and resulting development will
not generate a significant impact on long-term air quality impacts.
Conclusion: Less than Significant
6. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 9 X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X
(e.g. farm equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to.nearby X
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 1 X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. X
compatibility with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land
Use Plan)?
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Existing Conditions:
The project site is a landlocked parcel that must accessed through the existing Judson Terrace Homes
parking lot and driveway from Augusta Street. City Engineering indicates this street is operating at
acceptable levels of service (LOS).
Proiect Impacts:
According to the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (sixth edition), single
family residences generate about 10 average daily trips (ADT) per unit and 1 p.m. peak.hour trip (PPHT) per
unit, apartments about 6.6 ADT per unit and .67 p.m. PPHT per unit; and attached senior apartments 3.5
ADT and 0,30 PPHT. Based on the trip generation estimates, future development on the sight would
generate between 105 and 112 ADT and between 10 and 11 PPHT.
Based on these estimates, the GPA/ZC will allow for an increase in traffic on Augusta Street and other
streets in the vicinity. However, the 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 Augusta, Laurel Lane or Johnson Avenue.
Future development must comply with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards. Compliance with these
standards will assure that no significant on-site circulation or parking impacts result from future
development of the property.
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..
,
9 2-56
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiauy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless impact
ER 106-99 mitigation
Incorporated
PARKING
Future development must 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 future development of the property.
Conclusion: Less than Significant
. p
7. BIOLOGICAL'RES.OURCES. Would the.pro osa4,affect:
a) Endangered, th'rea..tened or.:rare species or their habitats'
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 10 X
animals or birds)?
b) Locally designated species�(e.g. heritage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak X
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 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.
Amending the property's land use and zoning designations will have no impacts on the site's physical conditions
or any biological resources.
Conclusion: No Impact
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 11 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful.and X
inefficient manner?
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?
The General Plan amendment/zone change will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or
promote the use of non-renewable resources in an efficient manner.
Future development on the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Energy
Element. 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. Future development of this site
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.
Conclusion: No impacts as future development must comply with City established energy conservation
standards and all applicable state requirements.
A.- HAZARDS _Would the:proinvolve:
a) A risk of accidental expl_oston!or release of hazardous 10
substances (including; butmot=litntted to: oil,' X
10 2-57
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less"M No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 106 99 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Incorporated
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan X
or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X
hazard?
d) 'Exposure of people to existing sources of potentialX
health hazards?
e) increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X
grass or trees?
I T
The site does not contain any known hazardous substances and is not located in an area of high risk
Therefore, amending the property's land use and zoning designations will have no impacts on the site's physical
conditions or hazards.
Conclusion: No Impacts.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? X
b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels as
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 11 X
Element?
Existing Conditions:
According to the Noise Contour Map in the Noise Element, the project site is an area susceptible to
transportation noise. The site is also not located near a stationary noise source.
Proiect Impact:
Whether the site is developed with single-family or multiple family residences will not significantly alter the site's
noise-related impacts.
Future development on the site must 'comply with the General Plan Noise Element and the City Noise
Ordinance that establishes acceptable levels for interior noise (45 dB) and exterior noise ((60 dB).
Conclusion: No Impacts
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) .Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) 'Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e) Other governmental services? X
An infill site, adequate public services (fire, police, school and government) are available to the property
Whether the site is developed with single-family or multiple family residences will not significantly alter the levels
of public service available to the site. Future development must comply with all applicable City Codes and
State regulations.
Conclusion: Less than Significant
12 UTILITIES AND:SER1/ICE SYSTEMS, Would the proposalrresult m a need for new.:systems_or supplies;
or sutistarttial alterations to the:#ollowing utTitier4
a} =Power or natural9 as X
- - --
11 2-58
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 106-99 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Incorporated
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or.distribution 13 X
facilities?
d). Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm watend'rainage? X
f) Solid waste d sposal? 14 X
g) Local or regional.water supplies? 13 X
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."
The GPA/ZC will allow for the development of a project with slightly higher water demands. However, the
incremental change is not considered to be significant. Compliance with the City standards and State
requirements will assure that impacts to water supplies are less than significant.
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.
The GPAIZC will allow for the development of a project with slightly higher solid waste generation. However,this
incremental change is not expected to create significant impacts to solid waste disposal. Future development on
the site will be required to comply with City solid waste requirements, including the following:
Mitigation Measure
1. The future senior housing project or any other development on the site 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: Less Than Significant
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 GPA2C will allow for the development of high density residential project with taller .buildings and
lighting that may negatively impact views and create light and glare. The following mitigate potentia
aesthetic impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measure
1. Any development on the site shall require architectural review to assure that impacts to views an
light/glare are addressed properly.
Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
12 2-59
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 106-99 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Incorporated
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) 'Disturb paleontological resources? 15 X
b) 'Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical:resources? 16 X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which X
would affect unique-ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or.sacred uses within the . X
potential impact area?
Existing Conditions:
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.
Project Impact:
Whether the site is developed with single-family or multiple family residences will not significantly alter the site's
existing cultural or historical resources.
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? I I I X
The project will allow for an increase in population, which would add incrementally to the demand for park
and other recreational facilities. However, given the size of the project and expected number of people, n
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
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,. X
reduce the number or restrict the range of:a rare or .
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important.
a history.o
examples of,the major periods (if Cal, r
p 1 p tfomi
prehistory?
No
b)^ ,oes the`prlectve'the;
otentiatoachieve short-..!:
term,to the disadvantage of long term,:environmental : X
_...;goals? .�
In this case, short- and long-term environmental goals are the same
cY.Does.the project haveJmpacts:,that are"individually.`
limited, but cumulatively;considerable. '' (`Cumulatively.:`
considerable me.apsthat_the..mcremental effe .ts.:o# a
13 2-60
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiauy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 106-99 Issues Unless' Impact
mitigation
Incorporated
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 a
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 o
humans.
14 2-61
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
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 scope o
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable.legal.standards, and state whethe
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 21-087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3,
21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988);Leonofff V.
Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 1997.
2. City of SLO Land Use Element, April 1997.
3. City of SLO Circulation Element
4. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990.
5. City of San Luis Obispo Seismic Safety Element, July 1975.
6. Soil Survey of SLO County - Coastal Part, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture- Soil Conservation Service.
7. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 060310 0005 C) dated July 7,.1981.
8. APCD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook", August 1995.
9. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 6" Edition, Volume 2.
10. City of SLO Informational Map Atlas.
11. City of SLO Energy Conservation Element, April 1981.
12. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, May 1996.
13. City of SLO Water Allocation Regulations, June 1995.
14. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence & Associates,
July 1994.
15. City.of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995.
16. City of San Luis Obispo Historical preservation Program Guidelines, February 1987.
15 2-62
19. MITIGATION MEASURESIMONITORING PROGRAM
1. Mitigation Measure: A Special Considerations("S")overlay zone shall be placed on the property.
Land Use The"S"overlay zone is a tool to guarantee that the neighborhood compatibility
Compatibility issues are not overlooked. The special consideration overlay will document
'that any proposed development on the site should be reviewed for
neighborhood compatibility and will require an administrative use permit to
establish proposed uses on the property. Potential land use compatibility
issues will be addressed through project design and incorporation of adequate
buffers.
Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department staff and Architectural review
Commission will review future development project to assure that land use
compatibility issues such as noise, aesthetics, light and glare are addressed
through project design.
2. Mitigation Measure: Future development on the site shall incorporate facilities for interior and
Solid Waste Disposal 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.
3. Mitigation Measure: Any development on the site shall require architectural review to assure
Aesthetics that impacts to views and light/glare are addressed properly.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
detailed plans submitted for architectural review by the City Architectural
Review Commission and by the Community Development Department
staff.
16 2-63
In order to preserve the property values and quality of life in our
neighborhood, we the undersigned property owners are opposed to
the proposed zoning changes from low-density residential to high-
density by the owners of Judson Terrace Lodge.
NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE
y�'I AK I L V/j '6P6tWt '44xj ��tes Y o�9J5 HN50,c� io�y�9y
X199
o e o 37y
'Z A7�l S 7, U 2y _9
00
3007 J-diA):�p j Aur-.
/7'0 -P14 L ) ,Z!t N d' 3 U '/5 �d 1�Sd'/i /a ` • S�D �I) y0/
�s�o�uhcl 30�f� Joh n�oh Ade
ML .ING AGENDA
JUDSON TEkRACE HOMES DATE lc� 'I �"�f 1'109 C. JU4_Manager
3000 Augusta Street/San Luis Obispo, California 93401/Telephone bi:;:'r-44-1600
;&A
IL ECDD DIR
• --0 FIR DTA
❑FIRE CI'ii�FDeceiriber 8, 19 EY ❑PW DIR
IORIG ❑POLICE C"F
T AM ❑REC DIR
Dear Friend of Judson Terrace: ❑UTIL DIR
❑PERS DIR
I suspect that most of you have heard by now thatti�n.-
HUD for a Frail Elderly Center was approved! No duld not
have happened without the strong endorsements we received from
community leaders such as you. Our application contained so many
enthusiastic letters of support that I was impressed myself with how good we
are! (Ha!)
So this is just to convey to you the good news if you have not yet heard it
and to thank you for your help.
As you may also know, we are in the process of seeking a zoning change
for the two lots upon which we plan to build. The request has passed the
Planning Commission by a 6 to 1 vote and we are currently scheduled to
have a hearing on this before the City Council on December 13th (Monday).
• At this time, it looks good -- we believe that the City Council is quite
supportive of what we are trying to do and will be supportive of this zoning
change. The fact that we now have HUD approval will certainly help.
We plan to move ahead quickly with this in January. The new
development staff who are working with this project from American Baptist
Home of the West feel that it is quite feasible that we could be up and
running within a year.
We'll try to keep you informed about our progress periodically.
al
Sincerely,
�.
oger C. Jum
Administrator
RE=CEIV D
Nonged by
n-Sectarian Services in Retirement Living DEC 1 3 1999
AB American B ptist
Homes of the West SLO CITY COUNCIL
MOME9